[Board] Eclipse meeting report

[Peter Batty]

Michael, I have been on vacation for the past week, and still am, I return
home tomorrow night. And I have only had a chance to skim the emails on
this topic so far. I would like the chance to look at the email thread in
more detail on my return, but in general I continue to support the idea of
us working with the Eclipse Foundation. So I encourage you not to withdraw
your motion yet, I will comment more next week when I've had a chance to
catch up with things.

Cheers,
    Peter.

On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

> 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 <javascript:;>]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:02 PM
> > To: mpg at flaxen.com <javascript:;>
> > 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"
> -
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120526/f1d47b0b/attachment.htm>