[Board] OSGeo is becoming irrelevant. Here's why. Let's fix it.
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 01:03:39 PDT 2015
Darrel,
Excellently stated ideas! We, OSGeo need to acknowledge our weaknesses
if we are going to address them!
Your ideas will provide the incoming board with a great framework to
start discussions. I'm hopeful that you will be available to expand upon
these themes that you have raised, and help OSGeo and the OSGeo board
identify ideas for implementation?
Expanding upon your question about "what is the importance of OSGeo?"
Ie, what does OSGeo provide which isn't available elsewhere?
* I'd say "OSGeo" provides a brand. The OSGeo brand stands for quality,
standards compliance, Open Source Geospatial Software, and associated
Open Source communities. This is defined in the OSGeo Incubation process
[1] and reflected in the charters of our projects.
* OSGeo also stands for a marketing pipeline, which is embodied in the
FOSS4G conferences and OSGeo-Live. Marketing is also gained through
DebianGIS, UbuntuGIS packaging.
* I also see the education initiatives as becoming an upcoming focus
area for OSGeo. I see huge (mostly untapped) potential to integrate
training initiatives with project development communities. A full time
employee dedicated to this integration could make an impressive
difference. (I'm thinking about using a similar process to that used by
the OSGeo-Live project [2] )
With regards to your idea of shipping the board away to a physical
location to discuss solutions. I think that would be a good idea if the
breadth of the OSGeo community were in the room. However we have some
incredibly intelligent and insightful people in our OSGeo community, and
not all of them are on our current board. Some have served on prior
boards. Some, such as yourself, have contributed hugely to OSGeo in
other ways, but never served on the board. I'd be hopeful that we could
thrash out some of these ideas in a public forum first, which hopefully
will help the board draw upon the insights of our greater community. (I
do note Darrel's very valid point about the difference between talk and
action. Of late, there have been less ideas converted to action.)
Warm regards, Cameron
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
[2]
http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/memoirs-of-cat-herder-coordinating.html
On 26/09/2015 4:40 pm, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>
> Darrel YOU ARE WRONG.... BUT
> osgeo is a great and successful community and this alone desrve the
> OSGeo existence.
>
> Before we only had project oriented communities (mapserver, grass,
> etc). But now we have a place in the network to get togheter with all
> projects and users. Aren't we using stack of softwere instead of a
> single solution very often?
> FOSS4G is where we exchange ideas, create innovation and get fun also.
>
> Some excellent work is done also in some working groups... incubation
> and geo4all for example...
>
> So you are WRONG!
>
> BUT.... i have to agree that things could even be better :-)
> In my opinion (and this is part of my manifesto even if i still have
> one more year to serve the board):
> - we need to redefine objectives of the association cause things have
> changed (reault framework...)
> - we need to better promote our valuable software and community
> (marketing. ..)
> - we need to review and redefine rules so that they are transparent
> and clear (communication... )
> - we need to lower the rates of our international meetings to be more
> inclusive
> - we need a plan for investment (investment plan..)
>
> So i call for a face2face meeting of 2 days of all the board members
> in the next months to discuss all these points.
> Apparently the last board was not able to set a date, but i'm keen
> that the new board will be able to do it. It will aslo he agood
> starting point to define our working plan...
>
> The i call all of you charter member to help and do things...
> continuing in shaking the community but also propose and act to make
> the world a better place. Then if you think the world would be better
> without osgeo... well... be part of the community is not mandatory :-)
>
> Best
> Proudly member of osgeo
> Maxi
>
> Il 25/Set/2015 21:57, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darrell at garnix.org
> <mailto:darrell at garnix.org>> ha scritto:
>
> The recent discussion on the board list
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-September/013172.html>that
> came out of the question of the 2014 videos has got me thinking
> about a few things again, and I want to try to get them out there.
>
> Grab a mug of your favorite liquid and hunker down, because I put
> some time and effort into this, and your own well considered reply
> is appreciated.
>
> Keep in mind that all of these comments are coming from my
> personal perspective, which, like everyone’s, is an incomplete
> picture of the whole. Much of what I’m going to say has been
> rolling around my head for a while, so I’m just going to put it
> out there.
>
> I will start with a provocative thesis:
>
> OSGeo lacks visionary unified leadership and without it will
> become irrelevant.
>
> Of course, making such a claim requires support. So let me break
> down the statement.
>
> “Visionary leadership” is really two things, “vision” and
> “leadership.” I will address each in turn.
>
>
> OSGeo lacks vision
>
> I looked at the list of “Goals” for OSGeo
> <http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html>. I wonder:
> when was the last time these goals were evaluated for both success
> and relevancy?
>
> Here is my own opinion of success of some of these goals. (In the
> interest of brevity, I haven’t tried to tackle everything. That’s
> left as an exercise to the reader.)
>
>
> Example 1
>
> To provide resources for foundation projects - eg. infrastructure,
> funding, legal.
>
> Allow me to break each of those examples down.
>
>
> Infrastructure
>
> It’s true that OSGeo provides some infrastructure, such as Trac
> instance, Mailman, SVN repos. If the budget is to be believed, we
> pay some $3,500/yr to OSUOSL for said infrastructure. I wonder if
> such a service is necessary, however. Issue tracking and source
> control are much better provided by Github, which is free for
> organization such as ours.
> I say this because a) that’s money that could be better spent
> elsewhere and b) supporting these services burns precious
> volunteer time (more on that below).
>
> There are clear cost savings available, which are not taken
> advantage of. For example, OSGeo could be hosting FOSS4G
> infrastructure: conference websites and registration, a central
> location for conference videos (regardless of platform/provider).
> This neglect is especially galling given that FOSS4G is OSGeo’s
> sole source of income.
>
>
> Funding
>
> OSGeo does not fund projects. It has provided some funds to pay
> for Code Sprints — $15k in 2014 according to the budget
> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2014>.
>
>
> Legal
>
> I see nothing that has been done on this front recently. Please
> feel free to correct me.
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> OSGeo, where it actually does what it claims, has not adapted in
> ways that could save money.
>
> My grade: D
>
>
> Example 2
>
> To promote freely available geodata - free software is useless
> without data.
>
> The geodata working group is dead. As near as I can tell by
> perusing the mailing list archives, and the wiki, there has been
> no meaningful activity in the past two years (maybe more).
>
> My grade: F
>
>
> Example 3
>
> To promote the use of open source software in the geospatial
> industry (not just foundation software) - eg. PR, training, outreach.
>
> The Board of Directors
> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Packaging_and_Marketing>page
> says:
>
>
> Packaging and Marketing
>
> OSGeo’s marketing effort has primarily been focused around the
> packaging and documentation efforts of OSGeo-Live, and to a lesser
> extend[sic], osgeo4w. […] It has been entirely driven by volunteer
> labour, with 140 OSGeo-Live volunteers, and printing costs have
> been covered by local events or sponsors. In the last couple of
> years, OSGeo has covered local chapter expenses required to
> purchase non-consumable items for conference booths (such as a
> retractable banner). In moving forward, OSGeo hope to extend
> marketing reach by providing co-contributions toward printing
> costs of consumable items at conferences, such as toward
> OSGeo-Live DVDs.
>
>
> Local Chapters
>
> Much of OSGeo’s marketing initiates are applied at the local
> level. In many cases, this is best supported through as little as
> an email list and wiki page. OSGeo also supports local chapters by
> offering to pay for an Exhibition starter pack for local chapters.
> Local chapters are also usually the coordinators of conferences
> and related events, as mentioned above.
>
> Exhibition starter packs almost never happen; OSGeo-Live
> explicitlygets no support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at
> its own conferenceto say nothing of any other conferences.
>
> Note: Local chapters certainly do do marketing and outreach, but
> these efforts are essentially unsupported by the OSGeo Foundation.
> In fact, this goal and the Board of Directors webpage seem to be
> explicitly contradictory.
>
> My grade: F.
>
>
> Commentary
>
> I could go on with my own personal evaluations, but I’m not sure
> that’s necessary. The only place I see that OSGeo has
> unquestionably succeeded in the past few years is the final goal,
> “To award the Sol Katz award for service to the OSGeo community”.
>
> So, what’s my point here? It’s simple: there is no longer a
> coherent vision for what OSGeo should be. I’ll return to that
> below, but let me continue with my other point.
>
>
> OSGeo lacks leadership
>
> Again quoting the Board of Directors’ page:
>
> The board’s primary responsibility is to efficiently and
> effectively make strategic decisions related to the running of OSGeo.
>
> I won’t bore you with the details, but a perusal of the board
> meeting minutes would indicate that strategyis rarely, if ever, a
> part of the meetings.
>
> The emphasis on consensus-based decision making often leads to no
> decisions being made. I can’t count the number of discussions that
> have come up on the board list only to devolve into a morass of
> nit-picking and eventual lack of action when everyone tires of the
> discussion. What action that is taken is often to “delegate” to a
> (possibly inactive) sub-committee, then never follow up.
>
> Instead what we have is a great deal of inertia, little interest
> in changing things, and no clear indication of what the Board’s
> priorities are.
>
> If priorities do exist, they’re lost in a maze of confusing,
> incomplete and often contradictory information on the wiki. (Wikis
> — like abandonware for documentation.)
>
>
> On pending irrelevancy
>
> I encourage you to ask some random people in the open source
> geospatial community what OSGeo means to them. I would make a bet
> that the most common answer is a blank stare.
>
> I would ask the board members to come up with three things, other
> than FOSS4G, where the OSGeo membership has shown its importance
> to the community as a wholein the last two years. Something where
> people say, “Did you hear about[exciting thing]OSGeo is doing on
> X?” To be clear, I don’t mean just things that OSGeo has a finger
> in, but things that needOSGeo. If OSGeo disappeared tomorrow,
> would any of these projects be significantly affected?
>
> I don’t think it can be done. The OSGeo Foundation is sliding into
> irrelevancy — and it may already be there.
>
> If anything should be seen as strategic for OSGeo, it’s FOSS4G,
> the foundation’s primary (sole?) source of income. Even regarding
> its flagship public event, the board is largely absent. Rather
> than provide adequate resources and planning, they instead rely on
> burning out volunteers, then make post-hoc demands on the way they
> shouldhave done it, provide no future support for organizers to
> heed those demands, rarely follow up, then go on to repeat the
> same mistakes the following year. Honestly, it’s surprising that
> FOSS4G has failed only once. (I think this is a reflection of the
> demand for the conference, not the blazing competence of OSGeo.)
>
> Michael Gerlek brought this up
> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-July/014521.html>on the
> osgeo-discuss list in July, and probably has a more generous spin
> on it. He essentially argues that it’s time to declare mission
> accomplished and shut down or rebooted. I agree with his points,
> and I’m arguing that OSGeo can have something to offer, but it
> will require a major re-think of its mission.
>
>
> Fixing things
>
> I hinted at this in my recent questions to the board candidates,
> but I want to be explicit here: OSGeo needs to evolve or die.
>
> Here’s how I would do it:
>
> 1.
>
> The board needs to evaluate all of its goals, as defined on
> the About page, to decide if they are still truly goals.
> Define any new goals.
>
> 2.
>
> Ask the question: “What does it mean to succeed at this goal?”
>
> If the goal is vague, or ongoing, give a timeline: “What does
> success look like for this goal one year from now?”
>
> 3.
>
> Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask
> the question, “How will we know if we’ve succeeded?”
>
> 4.
>
> Prioritize the goals.
>
> 5.
>
> Allocate resources to the goals.
>
> Obviously this is a tricky one, but I think we can look at
> this a balance between Importance and Effort.
>
> Spend money to reduce to the effort required, more money if
> the goal is more important — this might be the hardest
> cultural shift. Volunteer time is precious and easily
> discouraged. Make sure that you make it as efficient as
> possible by spending money when you can.
>
> For example, many of the infrastructure services OSGeo
> provides can be easily outsourced to more featureful services
> that are more responsive and rely less on volunteer labor.
>
> 6.
>
> Close the loop on tasks. When a task is delegated to a
> committee or individual, track its progress, both to know that
> it is or isn’t happening, and to be able to acknowledge and
> incorporate the work when it’s done. Failing to acknowledge
> people’s labor or to use the results of that labor will
> virtually guarantee that the volunteer does not continue to help.
>
> 7.
>
> Evaluate success and failure. GOTO 1.
>
> Aside: none if this will happen without a strong executive.
> Whether that position is paid or not is up to the board, but it’s
> clear that there needs to be someone who can make decisions
> without endless rounds of fruitless discussions. The board as
> currently constituted is not dysfunctional, but it is mostly
> afunctional.
>
> I’m will go so far as to suggest this: Fly every board member who
> is available to a two or three day retreat. Get everyone in the
> same room, a professional facilitator to speed the process, then
> figure out what OSGeo is going to be and how to get there. Don’t
> fret excessively about the expense — this isn’t about saving
> money, it’s about saving OSGeo.
>
> If you ask me, irrelevancy is a fate worse than death. Be
> bold!It’s better to try to do something big and new then fail than
> to simply fade away and be forgotten.
>
> Though my comments above may sound harsh, they are sent with the
> very best of intentions. I want OSGeo to succeed, but OSGeo is
> never going to succeed if it doesn’t know what it’s try to succeed
> at.Without real reform, I don’t see success happening, just
> irrelevance. Here’s hoping this gets the ball rolling.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20150926/779cc6c7/attachment.htm>
More information about the Board
mailing list