[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Form Follows Function
Marc Vloemans
marcvloemans at b3partners.nl
Mon Dec 22 07:35:29 EST 2008
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
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list