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

[Dan Ames]

Again from the sidelines... It would be an interesting exercise to
conceptualize how having a single professional conference organizing
company would have/have not made a difference with the failed voyage of
FOSS4G to China in 2012. - Dan

**********************************************************************
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

http://ceen.et.byu.edu/content/dan-ames
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Ames
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S0GUCeUAAAAJ

**********************************************************************

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140919/97b4a24d/attachment-0002.html>