<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">On 06/26/2012 07:27 PM, Seven (aka
Arnulf) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Andrew,
I perceive your tone as somewhat aggressive and this does not help me in
following your arguments. Therefore please allow me to clarify some of
the things you are saying, hopefully in a way that is acceptable for
you. Sorry for the long mail but my hopes are that it is worth reading
anyway because it points to some fundamental things OSGeo itself is
still becoming aware of. Maybe worth a few blogs once clear on my mind.</pre>
</blockquote>
Arnulf,<br>
<br>
Thanks for this. I meant to be direct and clarify some important
items. I do hope such a discussion is worthwhile and accomplishes
its goal.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 06/26/2012 07:23 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Everyone,
Arnulf questioned why I edited some of the changes he made on the FAQ
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ"><http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location/FAQ></a>.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
You are taking some of my comments out of context. The one which might
better explain why I asked for the motivation of your edits (not
"questioning you" is that: "It would be detrimental for both
(orgainzations) if we start to deny what the other's core features are."
In your FAQ write-up I missed some of the powerful features of OSGeo,
that was all.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'd like to share a few thoughts here in the form of clearing up some
misconceptions he seemed to have. Hopefully this helps.
1) Openness, transparency, and vendor neutrality
Arnulf wrote: "please feel free to talk to the board list of OSGeo, you
are more than welcome there (that list is open to anybody, another
fundamental difference to how Eclipse operates)."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Please correct me but a quick scan did not turn up a Wiki edited board
meeting agenda, IRC protocols of the meetings and open-to-all mailing
list. Yes, we are that open. And yes, I do believe that Eclipse
functions fundamentally different. And I am not saying that this is bad,
it is just different. So unless you can produce proof of the Eclipse
working in the same way as OSGeo does, then there was no misconception
in my understanding.</pre>
</blockquote>
For what it's worth, for the Eclipse Foundation Board minutes:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/minutes.php">http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/minutes.php</a><br>
<br>
And all mailing lists:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.eclipse.org/mail/">http://www.eclipse.org/mail/</a><br>
<br>
And in particular for the Location Working Group:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location#Past_meetings">http://wiki.eclipse.org/Location#Past_meetings</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At Eclipse, the discussion forums, IRC, wiki, bug tracker, code
repositories, many of the conference calls, events, board minutes, etc.
are all public. These principles are part of everything the Eclipse
Foundation does so this statement insinuating otherwise is bogus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Understood - and I did not intend to question this either. Let me
reframe my comment a bit: The software development and community side of
things is just as open as OSGeo. The running of the organization is not.
And again - please do not take this as a criticism of Eclipse. It is
perfectly valid for this type of organization. As a comparison, the OGC
BoD does not maintain an open Wiki for their board agenda either, but
this does not prevent us from having an MoU and good relations with
them. But just because OGC, Eclipse and many others operate in this way
does not mean that it is the best or the only way to run an organization.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Glad you feel the community & projects are equally and admirably
open and transparent. That was important.<br>
<br>
Regarding the board agenda on a wiki, etc. I'm not sure it really
matters that much. No doubt some will feel strongly otherwise and
that's OK. At Eclipse, people are encouraged to reach out to their
elected representatives. Staff members like myself & my
colleagues are always glad to help connect people. There are other
lists & forums that are wide open.<br>
<br>
Look at organizations closely and one will spot differences.
Especially in infrastructure. We could easily be sucked into a
lengthy conversation on this and try to figure out what those minor
differences really mean. I for one am dubious of the value in doing
so. I'm glad to move on now that you've clarified what you meant re:
openness which was the crucial thing.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You'll find the mailing list & archives here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg">https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg</a> is open to anyone
who's interested.
2) Membership base @ Eclipse is a weakness, few sponsors at OSGeo is a
strength
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Haha, sure. And I am a stupid jerk who does not understand anything. Got
the message. Thanks. This is not helpful.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Arnulf wrote: "On one side this makes OSGeo staff-less but otoh is a
strength because it also makes OSGeo independent from the whims and ups
and downs of commercial organizations. This is a central feature of
OSGeo and cannot be one of Eclipse."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Is it acceptable to you if I say that being completely volunteer driven
in some aspects makes an organization more independent? We did have
staff (and maybe will in future) and the way we operated was affected by
this. No more, no less.</pre>
</blockquote>
I guess if you feel it's a strength and selling point, then good.
For what it's worth, not everyone will see it that way. Particularly
those from outside the community. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This image is relevant:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/1SoxE.jpg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This image makes me look silly again. Is that relevant to you?</pre>
</blockquote>
I was using the cartoon to illustrate how silly that argument is.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Let's be realistic, OSGeo would have been glad to keep previous sponsors
and have others as well. Calling it a " feature" is being rather
dismissive of the issues that caused the companies to leave. Others
would likely use stronger language. ;-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Please go ahead and use stronger language if you believe that this will
improve our relations.
OSGeo was not able to develop a good sponsorship proposition (even while
we had staff). On the other side OSGeo does not have a clear concept of
what to do with sponsorship money. This might sound unrealistic but it
is apparently not high on the agenda. Can you simply accept this as a
fact and not interpret it as a failure? Some values and "features" need
not be measured in money. This is also something that Matt Asay -
otherwise a great blogger and opinion maker - also gets wrong all the
time. He is simply not aware of some important aspects of how
communities function and what they need to prosper. Therefore I think
your earlier mention of his blog on success and failure of foundations
misses the point of OSGeo. It may be valid for a lot of things but it is
not for the type of org that OSGeo is (this is where I think we need to
understand ourselves better).</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the opportunity in a nutshell. We *do* have solid ideas
about how to raise money via. a membership value, some good ideas to
get started off, and a governance model/system to keep the good
ideas & member value/support flowing. This is also why we feel
there's a good potential fit - OSGeo wasn't really doing this. The
closer we work together the faster we can establish a thriving and
sustainable ecosystem that befits both groups and frankly other
players too.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A large member body and a mature governance model helps to smooth out
the ups & downs of any one organization. Having organizations engaged is
a good thing... it subsidizes the things that cost money and it brings
valuable ideas, mind-share, energy, and relevance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is good and I congratulate you for it and I never questioned it.
Good to see that Eclipse has a solid foundation.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The bottom line is the governance model @ Eclipse is a bit different and
it provides professional services to projects in addition to volunteer
energy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Let me interrupt you - again. By comparing or opposing "professional
services" with "volunteer energy" you make an implicit statement saying
that volunteers are not professional. Understandably this is not
received well by a volunteer driven organization (and we have a history
of how disruptive such statements can be). And maybe this is also one of
the underlying sentiments that the broader community may have. We better
address this if we want to cooperate more closely.
</pre>
</blockquote>
No need for the dogma. It should be quite clear professional == paid
staff and not a value judgment on the calibre of the people
volunteering.<br>
<br>
Proper training is essential whether the person is paid or
volunteering. Accounting & legal are two good examples where
this is especially important.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FEA455A.9030008@arnulf.us" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is every bit as community & project focused. Some projects
will love it, others not so much. But choice - both, one, the other,
neither isn't a bad thing.
If possible, I'd love to shift the conversation to the positive things
we can do together. Talking about it is likely going to be more fun &
interesting. Here are just a few ideas:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Absolutely.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> * Events... regional, global, virtual, meet-ups, code sprints
* New project ideas
* Getting organizations involved with existing projects
* Creating a simultaneous release of location technology
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
What about my suggestion that Eclipse become a strategic sponsor of
OSGeo? Did this ever end up on your agenda? What valuable thing could
OSGeo do for you to make this an interesting option? Not that we need
the money, but every now and then this question comes up, so why not ask it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The Steering committee will need to see value justifying such
sponsorship. I can think of items that would likely be significant
positive influences:<br>
<ul>
<li>help encourage companies to become members</li>
<li>help encourage projects that would benefit from hosting to do
so. For instances ones interested in strategic investment from
member companies, products and services based on their software,
and comfortable with the development & IP policies.<br>
</li>
<li>do lots of successful events together</li>
<li>cross promote the group & it's marketing efforts<br>
</li>
</ul>
Andrew<br>
</body>
</html>