[Board] Eclipse - some more thoughts

[Andrew Ross]

On 06/26/2012 07:27 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> 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.
Arnulf,

Thanks for this. I meant to be direct and clarify some important items. 
I do hope such a discussion is worthwhile and accomplishes its goal.

>
> 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.
For what it's worth, for the Eclipse Foundation Board minutes:
http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/minutes.php

And all mailing lists:
http://www.eclipse.org/mail/

And in particular for the Location Working Group:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location#Past_meetings

>
>> 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.

Glad you feel the community & projects are equally and admirably open 
and transparent. That was important.

Regarding the board agenda on a wiki, etc. I'm not sure it really 
matters that much. No doubt some will feel strongly otherwise and that's 
OK. At Eclipse, people are encouraged to reach out to their elected 
representatives. Staff members like myself & my colleagues are always 
glad to help connect people. There are other lists & forums that are 
wide open.

Look at organizations closely and one will spot differences. Especially 
in infrastructure. We could easily be sucked into a lengthy conversation 
on this and try to figure out what those minor differences really mean. 
I for one am dubious of the value in doing so. I'm glad to move on now 
that you've clarified what you meant re: openness which was the crucial 
thing.

>
>> 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.
I guess if you feel it's a strength and selling point, then good. For 
what it's worth, not everyone will see it that way. Particularly those 
from outside the community.

>> This image is relevant:
>> http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg
> This image makes me look silly again. Is that relevant to you?
I was using the cartoon to illustrate how silly that argument is.

>
>> 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).

This is the opportunity in a nutshell. We *do* have solid ideas about 
how to raise money via. a membership value, some good ideas to get 
started off, and a governance model/system to keep the good ideas & 
member value/support flowing. This is also why we feel there's a good 
potential fit - OSGeo wasn't really doing this. The closer we work 
together the faster we can establish a thriving and sustainable 
ecosystem that befits both groups and frankly other players too.

>
>> 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.
No need for the dogma. It should be quite clear professional == paid 
staff and not a value judgment on the calibre of the people volunteering.

Proper training is essential whether the person is paid or volunteering. 
Accounting & legal are two good examples where this is especially important.

>> 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.

The Steering committee will need to see value justifying such 
sponsorship. I can think of items that would likely be significant 
positive influences:

  * help encourage companies to become members
  * help encourage projects that would benefit from hosting to do so.
    For instances ones interested in strategic investment from member
    companies, products and services based on their software, and
    comfortable with the development & IP policies.
  * do lots of successful events together
  * cross promote the group & it's marketing efforts

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120626/dd4110dd/attachment.htm>