[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 13:29:59 PST 2015 

A few comments inline, the OSGeo board has a face to face meeting coming up
(so until that time take my comments here as my viewpoint).

On 12 November 2015 at 20:04, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jeff, Venka, Jody, Rob,
>
> Thanks for initiating this discussion and starting to put ideas out for
> public discussion.
>
> Jeff, Venka, I get the impression from your emails that you are concerned
> that LocationTech might "steal" community mind-share, and in particular
> take control of key OSGeo tasks such as FOSS4G and in the process change
> focus of FOSS4G into a more commercial event, which increases prices, and
> looses core community driven focus. Am I right? Or could you please clarify.
>

My concern is that OSGeo is relying on FOSS4G its major source of income,
thus is my interest in revising the sponsorship program.  My concern is
this places a lot of pressure on the event and the local organizing
committee(s). I would like to reduce that pressure and preserve FOSS4G as a
tool for advocacy. There was a impassioned lightening talk at foss4g this
year reminding everyone that this game is about freedom.

For the record, at the time I was disappointed at the time that Location
> Tech was created, and the functionality of Location Tech didn't get created
> under the umbrella of OSGeo. However both organisations exist now, and I
> can see that in moving forward that both organisations can exist
> successfully together and complement each other. (+1 to Rob's comments).
>

I was involved in the formation of LocationTech. In part as one of my
projects, uDig, is not in position to meet the strict requirements of OSGeo
incubation.


> The "Board Priorities" include focus on OSGeo acting as a "low capital,
> volunteer focused organisation", and acknowledge that a the role of the
> "high capital" business model is better accomplished by LocationTech.
>

That is interesting, I disagreed with you at the time but acknowledge the
success realized by OSGeo. I would like to find a middle ground (as
outlined above) in order to take pressure off our outreach events and our
volunteers.

Jeff, Venka, Jody and others on the board, what is your vision for OSGeo's
> future direction
>

This was outlined during the election process (it amounts to projects,
projects, projects).
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015_Candidate_Manifestos#Jody_Garnett


> and in particular, what is your vision for a future relationship with
> Location Tech?
>

I will quote one line from the above wiki page: "OSGeo has agreements (with
OGC and LocationTech) and I would like to ensure we take advantage of these
opportunities."

I may as well link to my more recent talk (https://vimeo.com/142989259) as
I have learned a bit since foss4gna.

Should OSGeo revise our focus and goals? It might help to start by being
> specific. What should OSGeo take responsibility for? What should Location
> Tech take responsibility for? Are the organisations appropriately
> structured and resourced to take on that responsibility? If not, what
> should change to make that happen?
>

I will defer on commenting on focus and goals until after the face to face
meeting.

If there is a theme to the proceedings I would prefer both organizations
look outward - we have so much work ahead of us (a lot of good to do in the
world).

On 13/11/2015 3:53 am, Rob Emanuele wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> You are right, commercial-friendliness certainly does play a part in
> LocationTech. The way I've seen that enacted is by the use of the Eclipse
> Foundation's legal department to ensure that the projects which are
> supported by LocationTech are declared by a legal team to be free of
> proprietary or wrongly-licensed code. In this way, commercial entities can
> use the projects with some assurance that they will not be sued down the
> line for code that was not actually open in the way they thought it was.
>
> Also, there is a steering committee that makes decisions about how the
> budget will be used. The budget mainly consists of member company's dues.
> The members of the steering committee are decided by membership level
> (large membership gets representation on the steering committee) as well as
> a lower-membership level elected committee. There is also representation by
> the developers, who vote independently of any company and are there to
> represent the committers on the project. For more information, you can read
> through some links here:
>
> https://www.locationtech.org/charter
> https://www.locationtech.org/election2015
>
> In practice, as a maintainer of an open source project and developer, what
> LocationTech has meant to me is support for my project in ways that are not
> centered around business. To me it's been a place where I've gotten to
> collaborate with similar open source projects and have my project be
> promoted through events and other channels; for instance I participate in
> Google Summer of Code and Facebook Open Academy as a mentor through the
> Eclipse Foundation. Perhaps these are needs that can also be served by
> OSGeo, but they have in practice been met by LocationTech. From my
> perspective as a project lead and open source developer, that there are
> multiple channels that can potentially support me and my project is a great
> thing and signs of a healthy domain.
>
> I did not start LocationTech. So for me it's not a question of, why should
> LocationTech be created when there is already OSGeo; LocationTech already
> exists, and I don't think it's up to me to question it's existence. Nor do
> I think it's a useful exercise to question the existence of something that
> clearly has support and is supporting others. I can only decide which
> organizations I believe in and support, and what I can get out of those
> organizations as far as them supporting me. So on a personal level, my
> thoughts are that both OSGeo and LocationTech are good organizations. I'd
> like to find ways to support both organizations, and find ways both
> organizations can support me and my project.
>
> On a more general level, I'm against centralization. Having diversity in
> governance structures, funding models and support channels is a good thing,
> and I don't want there to be only one "true" organization that I can look
> to for support. However, like I mentioned, the ideal would be that those
> organizations could figure out how to use their difference skill sets to
> work together on making the community as a whole move forward. And that is
> what I am hoping OSGeo and LocationTech can do (as well as any other
> related organizations).
>
> Jody did a talk at FOSS4G NA 2015 on some of the differences between
> LocationTech and OSGeo, I recommend it:
> https://youtu.be/sdpEa6XdQEo
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jeff McKenna <
> jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Thank you for your very thoughtful response.  You summarize the situation
>> very well.  I think talking openly like this on this topic, is the only way
>> to make this all work.
>>
>> It sounds like I am wrong about LocationTech's goals; at the same time
>> then, if that is the case, that LocationTech is not about commerce (doesn't
>> "commercially friendly" encourage business interest?), then what was the
>> need to create a separate new foundation, also focused on growing Open
>> Source geospatial software?
>>
>> I hope we can speak openly here Rob, I do not mean any disrespect to you
>> personally or to LocationTech (some take it personal).  Please share here
>> the reasons you see to have 2 foundations focused on the same goal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-11-12 11:37 AM, Rob Emanuele wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to hear you are being bullied in private messages. It is
>>> perhaps best to bring in the Code of Conduct committee to help handle
>>> this; direct threats and private bulling tactics seem in violation with
>>> the CoC, and there should be steps taken to ensure that our community
>>> doesn't have bulling in our midst that goes unaddressed.
>>>
>>> I'm disappointed that you take LocationTech's core goal as "to promote
>>> business and give those businesses a stage". Your point of view and
>>> behavior on the lists makes more sense knowing that, though; if you
>>> believe that LocationTech is really about promoting the businesses, and
>>> not the greater community, then having LocationTech involved in the
>>> FOSS4G conferences would diminish the non-business community members'
>>> role in the conference, which would be a Bad thing. However, as a member
>>> of the LocationTech PMC and someone who was/is involved in the FOSS4G NA
>>> 2015 and FOSS4G NA 2016 process, as well as someone involved in the
>>> FOSS4G 2017 Philadelphia bid, I want to assure you that is not the case.
>>>
>>> There is real focus and real work being done at LocationTech to help the
>>> community of developers and users of FOSS4G. In this instance I'm using
>>> FOSS4G for what the acronym actually means, Free and Open Source
>>> Software for Geospatial, not referring to the conference that has
>>> captured that name. Both LocationTech and OSGeo exist to support FOSS4G,
>>> and the greater community (greater then both of those organizations)
>>> that use and develop FOSS4G. There are differences in the organizations
>>> for sure, and I think highlighting those differences and really
>>> understanding how they serve the community in different ways is
>>> important. The ideal scenario that I see is that both organizations
>>> would use those differences to collaborate and have a
>>> sum-greater-than-it's-parts type of support system for FOSS4G. Instead,
>>> we have a situation where there's distrust, finger pointing, and
>>> political "power plays" against each other. We have the president of one
>>> of the organizations characterizing the core goal of the other
>>> organization in a dangerously wrong way. We have decisions and
>>> discussions about a million dollar revenue generating conference focused
>>> on that million dollars, rather then how to ensure that conference does
>>> the best job possible at supporting and pushing forward the community.
>>> We have the precious resource that is the energy of volunteers being
>>> spent on political infighting rather than on collaboration towards
>>> serving the community. I'm not sure the best path forward for this, but
>>> I want to declare that the situation as I see it is bad for the
>>> community, collaboration between OSGeo and LocationTech would be good
>>> for the community, and I hope as a whole we can move towards that better
>>> future.
>>>
>>> I hear your concerns for the price of the FOSS4G NA tickets, though I'll
>>> point out to people who are following along that it's not as simple as a
>>> flat $1000 dollar rate. I encourage you to look at the registration
>>> pricing breakdown when it's published for FOSS4G NA 2016, be sure to
>>> apply for a non-corporate pass if you will not be reimbursed by a
>>> company, and to apply for a scholarship if the cost is still too high.
>>> Also, if you are giving a talk, registration is free, so please submit!
>>> The Call For Proposals is now open ( <https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp>
>>> https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp).
>>> Jeff, your presence was missed at FOSS4G NA 2015 and I hope that you can
>>> come to Raleigh for FOSS4G NA 2016.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jeff McKenna
>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 2015-11-12 7:01 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         I have gotten a number of private emails expressing concerns
>>> about
>>>         LocationTech being involved in several of the foss4g bids. I
>>>         guess I had
>>>         the opposite concern last year when there was the joint OSGeo /
>>>         LocationTech foss4gna conference. I was kind of embarrassed our
>>>         behavior
>>>         as a community - would prefer to see us as welcoming and
>>> supportive
>>>         (especially as we had a first time organizer that could use our
>>>         support).
>>>
>>>     Hi Jody,
>>>
>>>     I am very glad that you brought this up publicly.  Lately I too have
>>>     received very disturbing direct emails, containing threats of "if
>>>     this happens you watch" "karma you watch yourself" "if we lose you
>>>     watch out" and direct bullying tactics, for speaking my mind on this
>>>     issue.  The same people sending these threats will not speak
>>>     publicly on this, so I have asked them to stop sending me these
>>>     messages, but the messages continue, so I have stopped answering
>>>     them.  These are "power-play" emails sent directly to me, but I will
>>>     tell them here publicly, bullying me will not stop me from speaking
>>>     openly about OSGeo's one event all year, the global FOSS4G. (for
>>>     those not following the 2017 conference discussions, you would have
>>>     to read a long thread to get caught up
>>>
>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Call-to-discuss-FOSS4G-2017-proposals-prior-to-voting-td5234235.html
>>> ).
>>>
>>>     As someone just wrote last night on another list, likely there would
>>>     be no one else that has attended more FOSS4G events, regional,
>>>     global, anything, than myself. I make a point of going to a FOSS4G
>>>     event, to help grow the local community, no matter what size of the
>>>     event or where it is.  Lately in my FOSS4G travels I have noticed a
>>>     return to our FOSS4G roots, where the popular events are very low
>>>     cost, aimed at developers, users, students, researchers, and the
>>>     smaller companies trying to make a living (a great recent example is
>>>     the FOSS4G-Como event this past July).  Getting back to the topic of
>>>     your message: I too have been embarrassed by recent
>>>     FOSS4G-NorthAmerica events; I was shocked to see the 1,000 USD
>>>     registration fee there.
>>>
>>>     But I was not too upset, because no one is traveling the small
>>>     FOSS4Gs like me to see the difference, and I didn't see complaints
>>>     voiced from the local NorthAmerican community.  LocationTech
>>>     involved in FOSS4G-NA is a good thing, to promote business and give
>>>     those businesses a stage; the core goal of LocationTech.
>>>
>>>     However now we are in the process for deciding the global FOSS4G
>>>     event for 2017, OSGeo's flagship event, attended by the
>>>     international community, and we must be very careful.  Working with
>>>     foundations is good (hence all of OSGeo's great MoUs), and I'll use
>>>     the upcoming example that the 2016 team is considering, giving
>>>     LocationTech a 90 minute slot in the program for their projects (and
>>>     the same for OSGeo, UN, likely OGC, and other organizations).  This
>>>     is a wonderful way for OSGeo's FOSS4G event to involve other
>>>     organizations.  I hope that LocationTech will also give OSGeo a 90
>>>     minute slot in their big conference someday as well; this would be
>>>     exactly what I see as best-case scenario.
>>>
>>>     On the other hand, not signing an MoU, and then just contacting all
>>>     of our 2017 bidders, is quite a different method to get to the
>>>     table. Instead of a long-standing MoU agreement that would foster
>>>     the relationship throughout the years, as we have with so many
>>>     organizations, we are faced with a decision now that involves both
>>>     foundations and 1,000,000 USD (the annual FOSS4G event generates a
>>>     lot of revenue, making this very attractive to professional
>>>     conference companies all over the world, I was phoned yesterday by
>>>     one from Europe, for example).  The money is there, huge money, and
>>>     huge exposure for these companies.  And their jobs are on the line,
>>>     in their minds.  Hence this situation we are forced to deal with
>>>     now, and these nasty private messages being sent to me.
>>>
>>>     Let's try to remain positive though, as we have 3 great bids for
>>>     FOSS4G 2017, and a solid team working hard already to make
>>>     FOSS4G-2016 in Bonn another amazing event.  OSGeo has never been so
>>>     active and vibrant as so many initiatives and location chapters grow
>>>     all around the world.
>>>
>>>     Thanks for listening, and thank you Jody for bringing this topic to
>>>     the public lists.
>>>
>>>     -jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Jeff McKenna
>>>     President, OSGeo
>>>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing listDiscuss at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151112/3058948f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list