[OSGeo-Conf] FOSS4G Form Follows Function

[Frank Warmerdam]

Marc Vloemans wrote:
> 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.

Marc,

I'm a bit lost in the above.  It does appear to advocate transparency
which I can generally understand, though I find it challenging in
aspects of operational practice.

> 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.

It is each of those things to some people.  For some folks it is seen
primarily as a marketing tool, to demonstrate the open source geospatial
community is "ready for business".  For me the conference is primarily
a meeting of the tribes.  The best opportunity to have the best and
brightest of the FOSS4G world in one place to share ideas, and in some
cases make concrete decision on future work.  I also see it as an
opportunity to boost and integrate local communities into the
international community though I feel this should not be pursued
if it seriously damages the core role.

I think each FOSS4G has supported each of these goals to some extent, but
you are correct that it is impossible to optimize for them all at the
same time - some will suffer.

I would also point to our mission, and the goals we have chosen as OSGeo
to undertake in support of that mission.  They should act as a sort of
guidance:

   http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html

> 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.

I'm not sure what competition you are comparing to.  I've been involved
(on a bid team) in some large government contracts.  That is not a
process I want to "catch up to".

> 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.

I agree there is a need for regional/local/specialized conferences, and
that it isn't imperative for FOSS4G itself to grow to enormous size to
reflect our communities strength.

However, I continue to claim that FOSS4G - as the primary global conference
of OSGeo and the FOSS4G world - is "special" primarily because it is the
primary meeting of the tribes.  A chance to get a special density of
contributors that makes it possible for new kinds of progress to happen.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent