[Board] OSGeo is becoming irrelevant. Here's why. Let's fix it.
Vasile Craciunescu
vasile at geo-spatial.org
Sun Sep 27 14:37:15 PDT 2015
+1 for a board meeting where all the participants can focus for two
entire days only on OSGeo matters. I know this is no easy thing on a
voluntary organization.
Best,
Vasile
On 9/26/15 3:35 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Thanks for these thoughts Maxi, I too was planning on bringing the new
> board together face-to-face, something that we tried to do with this
> past board, twice; I think this time we will go on with the face-to-face
> even if one or two members just cannot make it. Simply pick a location
> that has one direct flight for each board member, a hotel with a room
> with a projector and whiteboard, have a set agenda, and discuss big
> picture and goals for the foundation, for 2 days. I am quite excited to
> do this with the new board. A board sprint.
>
> -jeff
>
>
> On 2015-09-26 3:40 AM, 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
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vasile Crăciunescu
geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
http://www.geo-spatial.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
More information about the Board
mailing list