[OSGeo-Conf] [Board] FOSS4G Discount for Charter Members proposal

[Steven Feldman]

Cameron makes some very good points which probably articulate the concerns of many in the OSGeo community. On the other hand, Andrew sets out well some of the concerns that people like me have regarding the sustainability of FOSS4G global events and perhaps the longer term vision and growth of OSGeo.

There are many of us who are passionate about open source and want to help to strengthen our community and reach out to an ever growing opportunity. Surely we can find a way for OSGeo and Eclipse to collaborate that furthers our shared objectives and addresses any concerns?

You can consider this an offer to help if wanted
______
Steven


On 5 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:

> Dear Cameron,
> 
> I'm grateful for your comments & insights.
> 
> After the vote was settled, multiple people approached me, apologized, and explained they felt bullied to vote against the D.C. bid. The fear you speak of is a powerful thing. I would like to help address it if I can.
> 
> Would do you suggest we do to address these concerns?
> 
> 
> To address your more general comments. There are good people at the helm at LocationTech and they're interested in building great technology & a vibrant ecosystem. The group has consistently made decisions in the spirit of collaboration and mutual benefit.
> 
> Whether it's sharing Legal/IP analysis of OSGeo projects so they can fix problems, sponsoring events, inviting OSGeo projects to speak at events, using staff to help organize FOSS4G-NA 2015, and more. These are tangible useful things from LocationTech that benefited OSGeo & the wider community.
> 
> There is no us & them. We're all part of the same community that transcends organizations/projects/initiatives. Different areas of the community take different approaches which are fine and complementary. Who says it has to be a zero sum game?! What if there's nothing to be scared of? Be prudent, but not fearful.
> 
> People who have good reason to know have been saying for some time that the status quo with FOSS4G is not sustainable. The issues are still as of yet unaddressed. Many of the problems are things the Eclipse Foundation and LocationTech can address. This isn't the only path forward, but I sense one that is more open & collaborative has a higher chance for mutual success. That's the spirit of open source.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrew
> 
> On 04/09/14 18:51, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> The Washington FOSS4G proposal was very compelling, however it was not selected. I can't speak for all the committee who voted or for their reasons for selection, however I will hazard some guesses, and aim to be frank to help further dialogue.
>> 
>> When LocationTech was founded there was concern from some that OSGeo would become redundant due to LocationTech attracting  Open Source GIS mindshare away from OSGeo. While LocationTech has attracted some mindshare, I think many of the original concerns have not yet been realised, and OSGeo still remains a very effective and efficiently run organisation.
>> 
>> Beyond the efficiency of OSGeo's do-ocrity approach to empowering volunteer communities, I suspect part of the reason OSGeo retains its brand recognition is the strong association between OSGeo and FOSS4G conferences. These FOSS4G conferences also provide OSGeo with a modest income which cover's OSGeo's frugal expenses.
>> 
>> I sense there is an unspoken concern within OSGeo voting communities that giving control of FOSS4G conferences to LocationTech has the potential to:
>> 1. Cut into OSGeo's current primary income source.
>> 2. Result in a loss of OSGeo's control of FOSS4G and related activities.
>> 3. Erode OSGeo's brandname, marketing reach, and mindshare.
>> 
>> This is a different situation to OSGeo engaging a Professional Conference Organisor (PCO) to run a FOSS4G event, as the PCO is not competing for Open Source GIS mindshare.
>> 
>> If LocationTech wish to play a greater role in FOSS4G, and attract OSGeo trust and community votes, I suggest LocationTech put practical measures in place which focus on these touch points.
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/attachments/20140905/d08ec265/attachment-0001.html>