<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thank you for your feedback and ideas.
Please see in-line below.<br>
<br>
On 06/20/2012 05:07 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE192EC.8010702@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Andrew, thank you for this email which helps clarify (at least for
me) what a joint Eclipse/OSGeo relationship might look like. In
particular, I found this section on your website very insightful:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_difference_between_Eclipse_and_OSGeo_for_example.3F">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_difference_between_Eclipse_and_OSGeo_for_example.3F</a><br>
<br>
I've actually learned a few things about OSGeo from this page.<br>
<br>
Re Conferences: I think that the path forward toward a joint
OSGeo/Eclipse FOSS4G conference formula will be reasonably easy to
navigate. I'll leave that topic for the moment.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed. The important parts here will be figuring out how bank
rolling & profit sharing work. Also, who's doing what for the
labour intensive functions like IT, Marketing, Sponsorship,
Accounting, Logistics, etc. The model can allow for others that
might be interested to get involved as well.<br>
<br>
Also related, the Eclipse community runs many (e.g. 50+) <a
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse_DemoCamps_Juno_2012">regional
events</a> globally every 6 months. IMHO, it'd be really cool to
have OSGeo local chapters join forces where it makes sense and vice
versa. This won't always make sense, but a) the potential to do so
at will is a good thing b) It's hard to see any potential for harm.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE192EC.8010702@gmail.com" type="cite"> <br>
Re: Foundations providing an umbrella for projects:<br>
* I think there is potentially a lot of value to be gained by
bringing in the best of both OSGeo and Eclipse, although there is
also the potential for fragmentation between two competing
foundations which would be less desirable. I may be an optimist,
but as we all come from Open Source backgrounds, I think we have
the collective culture and track record to be confident that we
can navigate toward a positive synergy between the two
foundations.<br>
<br>
Re: "The Eclipse Public License (EPL) is the default OSI approved
license used at Eclipse":<br>
Is this negotiable? I expect this will be difficult hurdle to
cross for many projects, mainly due to the inherited dependencies
of underlying libraries, and the number of contributors which will
need to be contacted in order to facilitate such a change.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This question is well timed. At yesterday's Eclipse Foundation board
meeting, resolutions approving use of MIT and BSD licenses for
projects hosted in this forge/group were passed.<br>
<br>
Resolutions giving explicit permission to re-distribute a few
notable LGPL components (Geotools, GEOS, JTS) also passed.<br>
<br>
I've updated the FAQ accordingly to note this:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ</a><br>
<br>
In general, the group is interested in encouraging location
technology projects to choose licenses & processes that enable
them to confidently invest and build products and services based on
the software involved.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE192EC.8010702@gmail.com" type="cite"> <br>
Re: Processes, Policies and Periodic releases:<br>
I see this as as an area which OSGeo can gain from Eclipse.
Processes which enable consistent quality control, along with
predictable release cycles are important factors in software being
considered by large risk adverse agencies and projects, as well as
many other sections of the purchasing community as well.<br>
OSGeo does have an incubation process which is a once off process
projects go through. We also have the OSGeo-Live DVD periodic
release cycle. I think it would be valuable to see how we can
align these existing processes with what Eclipse can offer in this
regard.<br>
And I think this formula from Eclipse is well worth considering as
Eclipse has a track record to show that by following their
formula, we should be able to take OSGeo projects to a higher
level of uptake, and financial gain for the community.<br>
</blockquote>
Precisely. The organizations involved in forming the group said
pretty much the same thing in terms of their hopes for what we can
accomplish. They know/trust Eclipse governance and processes. In
many of these companies, the friction for re-using or contributing
to software from Eclipse is less than elsewhere. This is a good
thing for adoption and encouraging strategic investment. The FAQ
touches on this... marketing bucks are nice, investment because the
software is core to the business is better. If we accomplish this,
it will be "rocket fuel" to accelerate adoption and investment in
open source location technologies.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE192EC.8010702@gmail.com" type="cite"> <br>
<br>
<br>
On 20/06/2012 1:37 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FE09CAE.5020405@eclipse.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Everyone,<br>
<br>
These are some relevant thoughts more than a direct reply to
Jody's post. Hopefully they help the discussion along.<br>
<br>
Working together, we see good potential for triggering growth,
innovation, and increased mind-share for open source location
technology. Nurturing existing technology is important. We
also want to invest in new & innovative areas not
currently addressed. There are things we can do to help enable
organizations to invest. This is what this is about.<br>
<br>
Projects:<br>
<br>
Simply put, some projects (hosted @ OSGeo or otherwise) will
look at the relative increase in process & formality or
something else and decide it just isn't for them.<br>
<br>
Other projects will be attracted to the opportunity to gain
additional mind-share and energy via. the group @ Eclipse.
Eclipse is ubiquitous and well trusted in places likely to be
desirable to projects and community. This includes
organizations, and also technology areas like enterprise IT,
Aerospace, Automotive, Financial, etc.<br>
<br>
Some projects may decide to be involved in both foundations if
they see a way to so with little downside. Some projects may
decide for neither. Some may feel one way today, and
re-evaluate in the future. <br>
<br>
<br>
Events:<br>
<br>
Collaborating on events seems like a good idea.<br>
<br>
Things work similarly for events between OSGeo & Eclipse.
It's probably fair to say there's less risk and maybe a bit
more consistency @ Eclipse given the dedicated full time staff
handling the logistics and fund raising. Also, we tend to host
the main annual conferences in the same location for a few
years at a time which also helps with risk.<br>
<br>
Here's how a typical EclipseCon/ EclipseCon Europe is run:<br>
The program committee is made up of community
members/committers and invited industry experts.<br>
The logistics such as A/V, Catering, Security, etc. are
handled by a full-time event planning team. <br>
The business team handle sponsorship, accounting, etc. <br>
<br>
In general, for what it's worth, working together doesn't need
to be divisive. Thank you to the team directly involved, the
people discussing the topic here, and especially Michael for
going to great lengths trying to ensure it isn't.<br>
<br>
Directly addressing a few things:<br>
<br>
Q: Will Eclipse become a platinum (or any other level) sponsor
of OSGeo.<br>
A: I can't really say. The Steering Committee of the group
will prioritize their budget based on their goals & how
such a proposal would contribute towards achieving them.<br>
<br>
Q: Will Eclipse work *through* OSGeo.<br>
A: We would like to find a way to work *together* on
initiatives of mutual interest.<br>
<br>
In case you're interested, more FAQ information is posted
here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ</a><br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 06/19/2012 03:55 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C67931B226F5489FB3E2962EB9DE4823@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span>
<div>
<div>I think that OSGeo should say:<br>
<br>
* OSGeo wants to continue to be the recognised
foundation that Geospatial Open Source projects turn
to for support. In particular, we don't want to see
the marketplace split by choosing between one
foundation and another. Such a slit is likely to
create a lot of bad will amongst the greater
community, and lead to reduced productivity which will
not be good for anyone.<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div>I don't think we have much danger of that - a choice is
not required. Projects already work with multiple groups
(examples github for hosting; OSGeo for community
development; source forge for file distribution; free
software foundation for legal advice and so on …).</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span>
<div>
<div> * As such we wish to see the Eclipse Foundation
worth through the OSGeo Foundation.<br>
<br>
If we can get the Eclipse Foundation to agree to the
above, then I think we can continue moving forward
with a positive discussion.<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div>Counter proposal here. We have already have a precedent
of working with the OGC on a few activities (an
interoperability day, a white paper and so on, and we
maintain a osge-standards email list to facilitate
discussion).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps we can treat this location working group in a
similar fashion, consider it as an "OSGeo industry outreach"
activity and ask that OSGeo maintain a representative in the
group.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aside: With respect to OGC collaboration, what is the
process the OGC uses to define their open source reference
implementations? Along with cite tests this seems like like
an obvious candidate for direct collaboration.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jody</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>