[OSGeo-Discuss] Fixing FOSS4G (was: Hacking OSGeo)

Wed Sep 17 16:05:48 PDT 2014

Nice summary IMHO, thanks
Jachym

2014-09-17 19:41 GMT+02:00 Darrell Fuhriman <darrell at garnix.org>:
> FWIW, what I want to ensure happens is that the issue of partnering with
> LocationTech does not get conflated with fixing how FOSS4G is managed.
>
> What is clear is that things cannot continue to go on as they have,
> especially if OSGeo is serious about expanding FOSS4G, both in size and
> scope. I believe the organization it at a cross-roads with FOSS4G, and it's
> a choice between expanding the conference with the help of a professional,
> or letting the conference stagnate (and hence OSGeo stagnate). It is simply
> as large as it can get under the current structure. And given that there's
> already been one flame out, arguably already too big.
>
> Unless things change, and change soon, there will be another failure like
> Bejing. It's that simple. It's past time to grow up and start acting like
> the conference(s) are OSGeo's lifeline -- which they are.
>
> Though one proposed path to adulthood for FOSS4G involves LocationTech, it's
> not the only possible solution.
>
> I see three ways to do this, each with advantages and disadvantages:
>
> 1) Contract an outside PCO on an ongoing basis
> 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer
> 3) Partner with LocationTech
>
> I'll address each of these in turn :
>
> 1) Contract an outside PCO
>
> This is the easiest thing to do. In fact, and this is very important to
> understand: OSGeo already hires an outside PCO, they just do so from scratch
> on an annual basis, in the most inefficient way possible.
>
> If you want the really easy way out, hire the one we used this year. They
> did a good job at a reasonable price. They were already discussing with the
> Korea team about continuing the contract with them.
>
> If you want to be more formal, solicit bids and choose one that way.
>
> However you choose, choose with the assumption that the contract is an
> ongoing one as long as both parties are satisfied.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> The only real objection I've heard to doing it this way is that it's good to
> have someone with local knowledge. My response is that this is simply false.
> In fact, we chose our PCO in part based on that assumption. We were wrong.
> Heck, one of them even commented to me that it was a nice change to do a
> conference in Portland, since they hadn't done so in years.
> Some lack of flexibility: if OSGeo wants to expand the role (see below),
> then it requires a renegotiation of the contract, and a general PCO may not
> be the right choice for that role.
>
> Advantages:
>
> Institutional knowledge. The conference knowledge carries on in the
> organization, and is hopefully not entirely imbued in one person.
> Simplicity. We're already doing it -- just poorly.
>
>
> 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer
>
> This is more risk, but also offers more potential.
>
> Advantages:
>
> Having a staff person allow OSGeo to be more flexible in organizing
> conferences. Is there a budding regional conference that needs some
> assistance? We can help with that. Would OSGeo like to foster growth in
> regions without a local FOSS4G event? OSGeo can do that.
>
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> You would only have one staff person, which means more risk of losing
> institutional knowledge if that person leaves.
> Potential for no being seen as less of/no longer a volunteer led
> organization. (Personally, I think this fear is overwrought, but that
> doesn't make it any less real. OSGeo already outsources jobs which its
> membership isn't qualified to do, for instance lawyers, accountants, and yes
> even PCOs.)
> Hiring is hard, and takes time, especially to find a good autonomous person
> to take on this role
>
>
> 3) Partner with LocationTech
>
> Obviously in the current context, this is a loaded proposition. I appreciate
> that there's fear of take over or of "losing" FOSS4G and its income. I
> believe that can be allayed with a properly written contract. There seems to
> be a lot of speculation about what a partnership means, and not a lot of
> facts.
>
> I see this partnership as starting with LocationTech serving as a PCO and
> nothing more.  If both parties later want to expand that relationship, that
> can be done, but start with the PCO and treat it as no different than the
> proposal in (1).
>
> Advantages:
>
> LocationTech works in the same space, has contacts, and the Eclipse
> Foundation already runs conferences
> Potential for future, deepened partnerships
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> LocationTech works in the same space, has contacts, and the Eclipse
> Foundation already runs conferences, so there's a potential for conflicts of
> interest
> If it doesn't work out for whatever reason, future partnership opportunities
> might be lost
>
>
> ===
>
> Those are a few of my many thoughts on the topic, and on my thoughts for the
> future of OSGeo, but I think it's important to stay focused on bite-sized
> chunks for right now. If possible, let's try to keep this (sub-)thread
> focused on the issue of FOSS4G and not on the larger questions about OSGeo.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 07:38, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel
> that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem.
>
> The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G.  We, as OSGeo,
> present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue.
> It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event.
>
> It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their
> own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G.
>
> So maybe to remove this stress, or "fear", I would prefer to pull back on
> the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin
> to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events.  In
> other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do
> with every other foundation.
>
> I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner.  In fact
> this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must
> deal with this all together.
>
> I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that
> I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone.  I am here to
> represent you.
>
> The last few days have been very hard on me.
>
> -jeff
> OSGeo President
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp

Give your code freedom with PyWPS - http://pywps.wald.intevation.org