[Board] Eclipse - some more thoughts

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

Andrew,
I perceive your tone as somewhat aggressive and this does not help me in
following your arguments. Therefore please allow me to clarify some of
the things you are saying, hopefully in a way that is acceptable for
you. Sorry for the long mail but my hopes are that it is worth reading
anyway because it points to some fundamental things OSGeo itself is
still becoming aware of. Maybe worth a few blogs once clear on my mind.

On 06/26/2012 07:23 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Arnulf questioned why I edited some of the changes he made on the FAQ
> <http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ>.

You are taking some of my comments out of context. The one which might
better explain why I asked for the motivation of your edits (not
"questioning you" is that: "It would be detrimental for both
(orgainzations) if we start to deny what the other's core features are."
In your FAQ write-up I missed some of the powerful features of OSGeo,
that was all.

> I'd like to share a few thoughts here in the form of clearing up some
> misconceptions he seemed to have. Hopefully this helps.
> 
> 1) Openness, transparency, and vendor neutrality
> 
> Arnulf wrote: "please feel free to talk to the board list of OSGeo, you
> are more than welcome there (that list is open to anybody, another
> fundamental difference to how Eclipse operates)."

Please correct me but a quick scan did not turn up a Wiki edited board
meeting agenda, IRC protocols of the meetings and open-to-all mailing
list. Yes, we are that open. And yes, I do believe that Eclipse
functions fundamentally different. And I am not saying that this is bad,
it is just different. So unless you can produce proof of the Eclipse
working in the same way as OSGeo does, then there was no misconception
in my understanding.

> At Eclipse, the discussion forums, IRC, wiki, bug tracker, code
> repositories, many of the conference calls, events, board minutes, etc.
> are all public. These principles are part of everything the Eclipse
> Foundation does so this statement insinuating otherwise is bogus.

Understood - and I did not intend to question this either. Let me
reframe my comment a bit: The software development and community side of
things is just as open as OSGeo. The running of the organization is not.
And again - please do not take this as a criticism of Eclipse. It is
perfectly valid for this type of organization. As a comparison, the OGC
BoD does not maintain an open Wiki for their board agenda either, but
this does not prevent us from having an MoU and good relations with
them. But just because OGC, Eclipse and many others operate in this way
does not mean that it is the best or the only way to run an organization.

> You'll find the mailing list & archives here:
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg is open to anyone
> who's interested.
> 
> 2) Membership base @ Eclipse is a weakness, few sponsors at OSGeo is a
> strength

Haha, sure. And I am a stupid jerk who does not understand anything. Got
the message. Thanks. This is not helpful.

> Arnulf wrote: "On one side this makes OSGeo staff-less but otoh is a
> strength because it also makes OSGeo independent from the whims and ups
> and downs of commercial organizations. This is a central feature of
> OSGeo and cannot be one of Eclipse."

Is it acceptable to you if I say that being completely volunteer driven
in some aspects makes an organization more independent? We did have
staff (and maybe will in future) and the way we operated was affected by
this. No more, no less.

> This image is relevant:
> http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg

This image makes me look silly again. Is that relevant to you?

> Let's be realistic, OSGeo would have been glad to keep previous sponsors
> and have others as well. Calling it a " feature" is being rather
> dismissive of the issues that caused the companies to leave. Others
> would likely use stronger language. ;-)

Please go ahead and use stronger language if you believe that this will
improve our relations.

OSGeo was not able to develop a good sponsorship proposition (even while
we had staff). On the other side OSGeo does not have a clear concept of
what to do with sponsorship money. This might sound unrealistic but it
is apparently not high on the agenda. Can you simply accept this as a
fact and not interpret it as a failure? Some values and "features" need
not be measured in money. This is also something that Matt Asay -
otherwise a great blogger and opinion maker - also gets wrong all the
time. He is simply not aware of some important aspects of how
communities function and what they need to prosper. Therefore I think
your earlier mention of his blog on success and failure of foundations
misses the point of OSGeo. It may be valid for a lot of things but it is
not for the type of org that OSGeo is (this is where I think we need to
understand ourselves better).

> A large member body and a mature governance model helps to smooth out
> the ups & downs of any one organization. Having organizations engaged is
> a good thing... it subsidizes the things that cost money and it brings
> valuable ideas, mind-share, energy, and relevance.

This is good and I congratulate you for it and I never questioned it.
Good to see that Eclipse has a solid foundation.

> The bottom line is the governance model @ Eclipse is a bit different and
> it provides professional services to projects in addition to volunteer
> energy.  

Let me interrupt you - again. By comparing or opposing "professional
services" with "volunteer energy" you make an implicit statement saying
that volunteers are not professional. Understandably this is not
received well by a volunteer driven organization (and we have a history
of how disruptive such statements can be). And maybe this is also one of
the underlying sentiments that the broader community may have. We better
address this if we want to cooperate more closely.

> It is every bit as community & project focused. Some projects
> will love it, others not so much. But choice - both, one, the other,
> neither isn't a bad thing.
> 
> If possible, I'd love to shift the conversation to the positive things
> we can do together. Talking about it is likely going to be more fun &
> interesting. Here are just a few ideas:

Absolutely.

>   * Events... regional, global, virtual, meet-ups, code sprints
>   * New project ideas
>   * Getting organizations involved with existing projects
>   * Creating a simultaneous release of location technology

What about my suggestion that Eclipse become a strategic sponsor of
OSGeo? Did this ever end up on your agenda? What valuable thing could
OSGeo do for you to make this an interesting option? Not that we need
the money, but every now and then this question comes up, so why not ask it.

Cheers,
Arnulf

> Andrew
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 


-- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us