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

[Allan Doyle]

Funny. I was also noticing a geographic polygonization of the  
opinions. Riding on the well-articulated arguments of Arnulf, I'll  
throw in a vote for FOSS4G or, if you must, FOSS4Geo.

	Allan

On Oct 1, 2006, at 07:47, Arnulf Christl wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at conference.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at conference.osgeo.org
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org