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

Fri Sep 5 09:28:22 PDT 2014

When we chose VTM Group as our PCO for the PDX event next week one of
my compelling reasons for voting for them is that they do
international conferences and their clientele is similar to OSGeo [1].

We were already discussing how ridiculous it was to reinvent this
process each time, and I thought that there was perhaps a possibility
that VTM Group could end up being the PCO of choice for future FOSS4G
events.

I think this discussion could be more productive AFTER the current
FOSS4G happens next week. That way more of our LOC can weigh in. Right
now everyone is pretty busy, so I would encourage slowing down this
discussion until after we can process how well this event comes off.
Percy
[1] http://www.vtmgroup.com/clients/client-list.html

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
> Thank you Steven, everyone.
>
> More thoughts in hopes they help:
>
> I sense the key concern may be profit sharing which is Cameron's point #1. I
> say this because LocationTech projects (JTS, uDig, GeoGig, GeoTrellis,
> GeoMesa, etc.), or unaffiliated projects (Leaflet, d3, Anvil, Cesium, etc.)
> and initiatives are usually welcome to speak at FOSS4G and the audience is
> definitely interested in them.
>
> There may be some tension between those that feel FOSS4G is a big tent for
> any quality open source geospatial software, and those that feel FOSS4G
> strictly == OSGeo.
>
> In my opinion, having been to all FOSS4G's since 2007 except one, the spirit
> of FOSS4G has always clearly been a big tent. I also think this
> *strengthens* the FOSS4G brand considerably, which is a good thing for
> everyone.
>
> Speaking to Cameron's point #1, for FOSS4G NA 2015, we are planning a fixed
> price per paid registration to contribute to OSGeo. This is a simple
> paradigm that is very clear to understand and helps ensure mutual success
> from a great event. I welcome feedback on this idea.
>
> Speaking to Cameron's point #2. Based on what Darrell & others before him
> have shared, it sounds like OSGeo is already somewhat absentee in terms of
> "controlling" FOSS4G. I noticed there are often fairly significant
> differences between FOSS4G proposals & the actual results. Sometimes
> considerable differences like a hike of 50% in registration prices for
> example. I think a clear relationship with the Eclipse Foundation with clear
> terms and strong continuity over time might enable more building upon each
> event might be better.
>
> For #3, with LocationTech, Apache, Mozilla, & many others doing open source
> geospatial, and other initiatives like Geomeetup & Georabble and many others
> are thriving, I think OSGeo is one of many organizations. This thought seems
> scary to a small group of people who had bigger aspirations. This diversity
> doesn't bother the vast majority of people in the community. I don't think
> "there can be only one" is necessary for OSGeo's brand to thrive. If the
> OSGeo board would like my help and advice with regards to brand, I am happy
> to offer it.
>
> These are my thoughts and feelings. I welcome feedback and criticism.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 05/09/14 05:16, Steven Feldman wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev

-- 
David Percy ("Percy")
-Geospatial Data Manager
-Web Map Wrangler
-GIS Instructor
Portland State University
-gisgeek.pdx.edu
-geology.pdx.edu
-portlandpulse.org