<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN'>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html;charset=us-ascii'>
<style>BODY{font:10pt Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif;}</style>
</head>
<body>
<br>Dear gentle(wo)men,<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Hopefully enough food for thought under the Christmas tree.<br>Best wishes,<br><br>Marc Vloemans</body></html>