[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Form Follows Function

[Marc Vloemans]

Dear gentle(wo)men,

On the rebound from a bid outcome that leaves me  somewhat bewildered, I draw upon my past strategy management  experience in order to make sense out of what's happening.

It is encouraging to follow the discussion. However, it fights too many symptoms.  This  FOSS4G discussion - as I read it - touches upon many issues and all of  these seem related to guidance and transparency of overall OSGeo strategy, policies,  processes and decisions. In more managerial terms this is called  "Organisational Governance". Whether the organization is a listed  company, a public organisation, issue-based foundation or other,  stakeholders require a great deal of transparency and guidance in order  to add value to the organization's mission and agenda. Value through  contributions to the community, especially the open communities benefit as this type of organization has a relatively loose organisational structure.

Firstly,  it needs to be decided if and  what particular role FOSS4G plays in the major scheme of things. How  does it fit into the OSGeo remit? Is it a strategic tool to fend of  ESRI? Is it a marketing tool to create FOSS awareness? Is it a  furtilizer tool to boost seedling communities? Is it a Jamboree for  just social and/or technical purposes? It is next to impossible to fit  all goals into a single conference, let alone a bid process, as has now  been the case.

Secondly,  once a combination,variation and/or permutation of the above choices is  made it is really possible to put together criteria for bids,  communication around the bid process and decision on a location and  theme. Otherwise we have this argument each year. When I think of  the professional competition from the closed world, with their  specialised strategists and marketeers, strategic planning departments,  their huge budgets and ages of competitive experience, I feel we have  some catching up to do in terms of policy making, decision making,  planning and execution.

Lastly, different strokes for different  folks is even with present globalization the name of the game.  What works here  does not necessarily have to  work elsewhere. For instance, Europe can not be treated as a single  entity (Old Worlds tend to be fragmented ;-) as many multinationals  have found out in the past. Unlike North America, where American  based/originated  open source communities have set an example in the past. That implies  that other regions and continents are in a different lif cycle phase of  their community development, their (F)OSS awareness and the like. They  should be treated accordingly.

A way to avoid a potential  one-size-fits-all strategic failure could be the organization of  several (perhaps smaller) conferences (I agree with earlier comments,  but not for geographical reasons only). Each with an specific  theme/agenda fitting the  needs of that particular region. Size for size's sake does sometimes  matter, however a wish for and trend of an annually increasing number of  FOSS4G visitors somehow defeats the purpose... Apart from the  organisational and financial issues (e.g. non specialised volunteers  working their asses off  for a relatively cash poor industry sector) there are other problems.  Size of a movement should not be mistaken for size of its activities.  For example; ESRI has a world wide mission, but the execution is left  to the regions and individual countries. Even for them a  one-size-fits-all strategy does not work.

Hopefully enough food for thought under the Christmas tree.
Best wishes,

Marc Vloemans
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20081222/6e39d6a1/attachment.html