[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G 2007 - whats in a name?

[Arnulf Christl]

Hey,
so this list is alive. Good to know. Sorry for being wordy but as I
stopped coding a long time ago I might as well waaste my time on politics
and leave it to Paul to do the real work. :-)

On Sun, October 1, 2006 07:40, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>
> On 30-Sep-06, at 5:04 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>
>> I prefer OSGeo 2007, or OSG 2007.
>>
>> I find the whole "FOSS4G" thing incredibly unwieldy.

My beloved online dictionary translates "unwieldy" into "schwer in den
Griff zu kriegen" which translates back into "hard to get a grip on". So
let us get a grip on it. This might actually be one place where OSgeo can
give advice to project leads who do not want to bother with unwieldy
licensing issues.

> My preference is the same, I like OSGeo 2007, for these reasons:
> - It has the "Geo" in it, so it is not only an ambiguous acronym

What exactly is "ambiguous" about FOSS4G? At *the* meeting of the tribes I
expect people to understand the full background of Free and Open and it
seems that it worked fine for people in Lausanne. "Free" refers to
licensing and policy whereas "Open" refers to development methodology.
Both go together. Having this straight acronym this year did not prevent
Oracle from showing up and I am sure they will show up again, no matter
what we call it next year.

> - This is a new incarnation of the conference, I think a fresh name
> would be good without choosing from ones used in the past

Good point. Otoh this must have been discussed extensively by last years's
organization committee resulting in the name FOSS4G. Anybody involved in
that discussion give us advice?

> - I think it should reflect the foundation closely if we are going to
> be the core organisers

As it stands all the ground work will again have to be done by a local
group as the Foundation can only do so much.

> - It builds up recognition and value of the foundation, showing we
> are interested in non-OSGeo projects as well

Huh? Its rather vice versa. Why should non-OSGeo projects want to be part
of a conference running under the name OSGeo? The Foundation is not all! I
say this as proud founder and Director. My first still visible impulse was
to hijack the conference for the Foundation and rename it to "The OSGeo
conference". Hence all my OSGeo Wiki writings say "OSGeo 2007". After a
lot more thinking I am sure to reverse this and keep the "F" in.

> - I think OSGeo sounds more professional and is less of a mouthful

Well, I don't want to eat the name... and I do not believe in "sounding"
professional but being it. The full term describing what we do is "Free
and Open" as we are also involved politically, have an opinion regarding
free accessibility of geodata, etc.

> - I don't think adding the "F" helps communicate anything more when
> the people I talk to rarely understand the difference between FOSS
> and OSS anyway

Ouch. That hurts. The direct consequence to me is that we must, must, must
make sure that everybody learns about the implications. Mind me, I am not
talking about rekindling the dispute between FSF and OSI but making sure
that the terminology  is clear. Those of you not wanting the "F" please
read Joe Barr's article "Live and let license" and only then come back
with good arguments:
http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/

> - 'Geospatial' (as in OSGeo) is more generally understood by the
> public than 'Geomatics' (as in FOSS4G).  Geomatics tends to be an
> industry niche, whereas Geospatial embraces geomatics plus the new
> era of web, spatial database, GIS, mapping, 'neo-geographers', etc.

Fine, but do we need to be attractive to the more general public. I think
we actually "want" an industry niche event - its the meeting of the
tribes. The more general public is better reached at Where 2.0, OSCON,
Intergeo, CeBit, etc. What we are talking about is the event (currently)
restricted to some 750 to 1000 people. That is the niche population. The
"G" in FOSS4G can also translate into Geospatial, GIS, Geographic or
whatever else, I don't care. Add "eo" and refer to the Earth Observation
part of EOGEO (remember that we are a joint conference, part also being
GRASS).

> I can keep debating, but think that we will be split on this.

I am not split on this. And mind me - I am not saying that is has to be
the "Free Software GIS conference". "Open Source" is already in it so the
Open Source guys should concede to the necessity on having the Free
Software component in. We want to be inclusive, so please include us. I
gave in when OSGeo was born because a renewed discussion would have
disrupted the flaky backing of the renewed energy to form the foundation.
I am not prepared ot give in with the conference name as easily. It will
not damage our reputation talking this one through.

> Getting feedback through a poll would be good as long as we can get
> broad representation to vote on it.  Any other name suggestions to
> vote on?

Strangely on this point I disagree. This is not about getting an average
opinion of Jo Normal but about policy, direction and mission. We have
already set those and it explicitly includes the term Free Software.

Other name suggestions:
FOSS4Geo, FOSSGeo, GeoFOSS - maybe not "OSGeoFS" (pronounce that without
covering your vis-avis in saliva...)

> Tyler

Lets get pragamtic. Why not solve this problem geographically? If you make
a polygon with the  opinions' respective locations as vertices then
Helena, Markus, Venka and me cover a much larger area than Paul, Tyler and
Dave (the north american freedom Bermuda triangle...). Problem resolved.

Ah - I see another North American centered opinion (Hi mpg) added the
Open-only notion. So we are balanced now in numbers but the Free folk
cover more space. We still win the argument - at least spatially.

:-)

Best regards,
Arnulf