[Board] Eclipse meeting report

[Jo Cook]

Dear All,

Please don't take my responses here as blockers- I am totally unfamiliar
with Eclipse and I'm asking stupid questions to try and better understand
what OSGeo would be getting into.

OK, so coming from a position of ignorance I went to the website and tried
to get an understanding of the Eclipse Foundation from their "About Us"
pages. To be honest, I didn't see much that looked different to what OSGeo
provide around project infrastructure etc. I didn't see anything about
funding. So, I'm curious to know a bit more about this side of things-
exactly what is it that Eclipse provides that is so much better than what
OSGeo provides? Are their licensing and "project approval" processes likely
to conflict with OSGeo's or mean lots of additional work for projects
trying to be part of both? If we are going to encourage projects to be part
of both foundations then it would be counter-productive to make them
duplicate the work of getting approval.


>
> Historically, OSGeo hasn't been able to raise sufficient funding and
> sponsorship to promote and further projects in the way that many of us
> would have liked. The reasons for this are many, but it is my considered
> opinion that as an entirely volunteer-based organization made up of a very
> diverse set of interests OSGeo is not likely to be able to develop and
> sustain a successful fund-raising campaign. Indeed, in six years we have
> made little progress in this area. Others may disagree; my position in this
> letter is based on this premise, however.
>
> A number of projects have goals they would like to achieve, ranging from
> attracting more developers to holding codesprints to writing better
> documentation to producing binary distributions.
>
> Our charter says we must support and promote these open source geospatial
> projects: but how are we to support and promote those goals of our projects
> without significant funding or resources?
>
> We now have one possible answer: by encouraging our member projects to
> work with the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> As I posted here a few weeks ago, I think OSGeo has successfully achieved
> many of the goals we set out for ourselves six years ago. But just as the
> geospatial world has evolved over those six years, so to must OSGeo. Our
> market and ecosystem has grown, new players are entering, and there's no
> longer any reason we need to be the only voice for open source geospatial
> software. Where there are other such voices and where they can accomplish
> things we cannot, we should work with them on those things, and concentrate
> instead on the things we can do.
>
> At the risk of sounding trite, we should, in fact, embrace the differences
> in the two foundations. Although writing code is the most significant
> effort we do, our charter is broader than that: we encourage data sharing,
> we promote academic curricula, we educate and inform potential new users.
> These are things that Eclipse does not directly represent, things that
> OSGeo needs to continue to stand up for.
>

We do have a significant sector of membership that sees all this additional
stuff as being secondary to "OSGeo is just for coders" (and hence for
projects). I think this is going to attract a lot of complaints, though I
might be wrong...

>
> * * *
>
> In summary, then, I would like the board to discuss a motion saying that
>
>  (1) We welcome the Eclipse Foundation as a new, valuable member of the
> open source geospatial world;
>
>  (2) We recognize the Eclipse Foundation is aimed at commercial-friendly
> open source software and may be able to support the goals of some OSGeo
> projects towards that end, in ways better than OSGeo can; and
>
>  (3) We encourage OSGeo projects that are of interest to the Eclipse
> Foundation to work with Eclipse, to the benefit of the project and its
> goals, the OSGeo Foundation and its community, and the Eclipse Foundation
> and its community.
>

This all sounds really defeatist to me! We may feel that way, but this
should be a mutual thing and not something we just get involved with
because we think we've failed. I would go for something like:

2) We recognise that the Eclipse Foundation may be able to provide
additional benefits and exposure to OSGeo projects

3) We encourage OSGeo projects that are interested in the Eclipse
Foundation to work with them, to the benefit of the project...

With the caveat that I mentioned above- that I'd like more information on
exactly what that will mean in practice.

>
> * * *
>
> As I mentioned, there are other areas where Eclipse and OSGeo could work
> together -- such as supporting the annual FOSS4G conference -- but there's
> no need to move on all fronts at once. I know some in our community have
> already expressed fear of a takeover by Eclipse, it's commercial
> orientation, and a dilution of the OSGeo brand. I believe that moving
> towards the motion above represents a good, solid first step to build
> mutual understanding, trust, and confidence between the two Foundations.
>
>
> Thanks for going Michael, and thanks for this really comprehensive email!

Jo

-- 
***Jo Cook*
Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
7RL, UK
t:+44 750 095 8167
iShare - Data integration and publishing platform<http://www.isharemaps.com/>

*****************************************

 Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
864201149.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120523/2bed0378/attachment.htm>