[Board] Eclipse meeting report

Fri May 25 15:25:05 PDT 2012

I'm surprised, confused, and frankly disappointed by the lack of support I'm seeing here.

Despite my attempts to make my proposed motion as clear, conservative, nonthreatening, and even-handed as possible, I've received a positive response from only one board member and some very negative responses from others in the community too.

I tried to make a clear report, but a number of people seem to be reading into it a lot more than I'd intended. I'm not sure where I went wrong with this, but clearly I'm on a different page from most of you.

So, without sufficient support from the board, there's no need to take this over to osgeo-discuss and I'll withdraw my suggested motion.

-mpg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Schaub [mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:02 PM
> To: mpg at flaxen.com
> Cc: Seven (aka Arnulf); OSGeo Board
> Subject: Re: [Board] Eclipse meeting report
> 
> Hey Michael,
> 
> I appreciate your thorough writeup and the time you have spent
> investigating this.  Without having taken the time myself to be
> involved in the Eclipse meetings, I still don't have a clear idea
> about what the relationship between Eclipse and OSGeo is likely to
> look like in the future.  I'm working separately on a project that is
> being considered for one of the Location IWG lead projects, and I'm
> curious to see where that goes as well.
> 
> Regarding your motion:
> 
> """
> 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.
> """
> 
> I'm not sure you'll get consensus on a board statement here (nobody
> else has voted one way or another).  I'd be in favor of having you
> talk about your experience and ideas on the OSGeo discuss list.
> 
> Tim
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Michael P. Gerlek <mpg at flaxen.com> wrote:
> > Arnulf:
> >
> > Please reread my proposed board motion, as I chose the words in it very carefully. It does not imply OSGeo has failed in any way,
> nor does it say anything about "selling" OSGeo, nor does it say anything about FOSS4G.
> >
> > Eclipse may well be interested in becoming a sponsor of OSGeo: it's an interesting idea, but one that's not been talked about yet.
> However, that idea is also not related to my proposed board motion at all.
> >
> > -mpg
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Seven (aka Arnulf)
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:35 AM
> >> To: OSGeo Board
> >> Subject: Re: [Board] Eclipse meeting report
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >> thanks for the report and the time and thought you put into this. It is
> >> well thought through but in some aspects I might want to shift
> >> perspectives a bit and echo some of the remarks already posted. We are
> >> not doing half as bad as it might sound here.
> >>
> >> >From what you write here I could well see Eclipse become a sustaining
> >> sponsor of OSGeo. That would give them the visibility they want plus
> >> high credibility in the community and closer contact to the projects
> >> they are interested in. I really mean this, what will they say to this?
> >> Can they help us develop a sponsorship opportunity that will address
> >> their needs? I am all open to actively pursue this.
> >>
> >> Apart from that I do not really see any 'location working group' (no
> >> matter whether W3C, Eclipse or anyone else) even coming near to what
> >> OSGeo is doing. These groups currently pop up everywhere because
> >> location is hype and everywhere in IT now. But none of these groups have
> >> a handle whatsoever on the involved projects. Therefore I believe that
> >> we don't have to "sell" OSGeo "under price".
> >>
> >> It is up to any OSGeo project to go through any other incubation process
> >> they chose to, there is no uniqueness in what OSGeo offers. Same applies
> >> to funding, if the OSGeo sponsorship program does not work for a project
> >> they can get money elsewhere. If a project wants more strict "IP"
> >> because they believe that this will foster adoption by "big business" -
> >> go for it.
> >>
> >> Wrt to conferences I do not really see the need to have FOSS4G be
> >> canibalized by anybody else than OSGeo itself. Even OSGeo itself is
> >> readily questioned when bringing up a more 'commercial' take of FOSS4G.
> >> At the same time it is a valid question whether professionalizing the
> >> suit-version of FOSS4G should not be done with someone interested in
> >> doing just that. Maybe diversify some more here?
> >>
> >> Coming back from FOSS4G-CEE in Prague I am still full of the vibe that
> >> this conference brought on. It was well organized, instructive and fun.
> >> All you need is a university, 100+ friendly people and no worries if it
> >> looks a bit low key. And the next edition in Bucharest, Romania is
> >> already in the pipeline, they are unstoppable and I think that this is
> >> good.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Arnulf.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/22/2012 10:16 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> >> > Dear Board:
> >> >
> >> > I met with the still-forming Location Working Group (LWG) of the
> >> > Eclipse Foundation today for a couple hours, the largest agenda item
> >> > being possible interactions between OSGeo and the LWG. Attendees
> >> > included OSGeo notables Geoff Zeiss, Chris Holmes, Andrew Ross, and
> >> > Dave McIlhagga.
> >> >
> >> > My slides can be found here (for now):
> >> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17690616/Eclipse-120522.pdf
> >> >
> >> > The Eclipse LWG page can be found here:
> >> > http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location
> >> >
> >> > * * *
> >> >
> >> > The Eclipse Foundation is setting up group to develop, support, and
> >> > promote open source projects in the geospatial arena, with a strong
> >> > emphasis on being commercial-friendly. Their intended efforts
> >> > directly intersect with the largest part of our charter here at
> >> > OSGeo, and so it is of interest to both communities to make this be a
> >> > positive situation for all.
> >> >
> >> > This new Eclipse LWG would like to be able to use some OSGeo
> >> > projects, as determined by the needs of their members. They could
> >> > choose to use an OSGeo project "at arm's length", just like any other
> >> > consumer of open source code (and as they currently do for some
> >> > Apache projects) -- but some projects they might wish to bring closer
> >> > under their foundation, for reasons of stronger/different licensing
> >> > models, collaboration between projects, etc. Such allied projects
> >> > would, in turn, be likely to get significantly more funding and
> >> > strategic support than OSGeo provides for projects do today.
> >> >
> >> > While Eclipse has made it very clear that they have no intention of
> >> > "poaching" away our projects, this could potentially become a
> >> > divisive situation in the open source geospatial world.  An OSGeo
> >> > project steering committee might well wish to work within the Eclipse
> >> > Foundation if they felt that would be better for their project in the
> >> > long run -- such as money for codesprints,  more developers, broader
> >> > industry adoption, and so on. Some projects already feel that being
> >> > part of the OSGeo community has not brought them sufficient value. We
> >> > need to address this very real issue.
> >> >
> >> > There are other aspects of mutual interest, such as conferences that
> >> > we could collaborate on -- but the focus of discussions today was on
> >> > the projects themselves.
> >> >
> >> > * * *
> >> >
> >> > Eclipse has asked us to work with them, and so it is now OSGeo's job
> >> > to decide how to react to this situation. There are three possible
> >> > reactions I see.
> >> >
> >> > First, we could declare Eclipse to be a "competitor" and discourage
> >> > projects and people from working with them. This would harm and
> >> > possibly fracture our community, benefitting no one and going against
> >> > OSGeo's stated mission to "support the collaborative development of
> >> > open source geospatial software and promote its widespread use".
> >> >
> >> > Second, we could ignore the issue. This too would fracture the
> >> > community, albeit without as much rancor. In two or three years,
> >> > however, we might find that the two organizations are competing for
> >> > scarce resources -- developers, sponsors, conference attendees. That
> >> > would be unfortunate. And, presumably, one of the two organizations
> >> > would suffer in the long term.
> >> >
> >> > Third, we could proactively choose to work with Eclipse now. Projects
> >> > that are of interest to Eclipse and whose members want to be part of
> >> > the Eclipse stack could be encouraged to do so, with the Board's full
> >> > support and blessing, because there is no reason a project can't be
> >> > part of both OSGeo and Eclipse.
> >> >
> >> > I favor this third approach.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > * * *
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > * * *
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > * * *
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _mpg
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________ Board mailing list
> >> > Board at lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Exploring Space, Time and Mind
> >> http://arnulf.us
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Board mailing list
> >> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Board mailing list
> > Board at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
> Expert service straight from the developers.