[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
Massimiliano Cannata
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Thu Nov 12 13:54:59 PST 2015
Thanks Jeff or this mail. It explains a lot to me and confirms my vision of
the situation.
As a board member i suggest not to have any official relationship with
LocationTech untill the f2f board meeting. There we could discuss a lot of
topics and come out with official positions and view.
Maxi
Il 12/Nov/2015 21:58, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> ha
scritto:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> I am also glad to speak of this publicly, this is a very important topic.
>
> I have been thinking more and more about Rob's response (thank you so much
> Rob for taking the time to speak with me on that). I will speak honestly
> here again, and I don't mean to offend:
>
> I am now left with a realization that, what I always thought of
> LocationTech as created to help commercially-friendly geospatial software,
> is wrong. I always just assumed that they filled a nice hole in the
> equation, by focusing on business needs. As was pointed out to me today,
> their goals now are in fact the exact same as OSGeo's. In fact, I have to
> really dig now for the LocationTech's former tagline of
> "commercially-friendly.." on their website, but I found the initial press
> releases for LocationTech and there it is in the second sentence, and then
> entire paragraphs on that goal. Did something change there that I missed?
>
> So now, yes, I am confused.
>
> And no wonder that, from those initial 2012/2013 press releases from
> LocationTech, fast forward to 2015 and they are contacting each of our 3
> bidding teams for FOSS4G 2017, I'm left with a sense of surprise and
> shock. The overlap exists, we are the same foundation, and, to make
> matters more pressing, LocationTech has politely declined any interest in
> creating their own global event for their community, and set their sights
> on OSGeo's only real source of revenue and global publicity, our yearly
> FOSS4G event. Now the pressure is on, as this 2017 discussion involves
> huge money, finances, brands, people's jobs, two communities, and our
> beloved FOSS4G event that we have painfully built to be a global brand.
> And yes passions are flowing, strong words of "fear", "bullying", "muck"
> are being dropped, and I have no doubt someone soon will say "inclusive" or
> "exclusive", and then "code of conduct", oh let's not forget "trademark"
> and even "lawyer" (to be honest, in the past week I've heard each of these
> words about this topic). It's all an absolute mess, if you ask my opinion.
>
> My vision is to work with foundations and organizations all around the
> world, locally or globally. OSGeo has done a great job on this, through
> our (admittedly slow process for some people) of MoUs, and building those
> relationships through designated committees or special sessions at FOSS4G
> events.
>
> This sudden thrust of LocationTech, by contacting each of our 3 bidders
> for 2017, is very calculated on their side, but on OSGeo's side, this is a
> hard pill to swallow so fast.
>
> I actually don't think it is OSGeo that should be the ones talking now.
> We haven't changed, we have always put on FOSS4G each year, moving around
> the globe. We put community first and foremost, our community is very
> strong. I think our community is what attracts LocationTech to OSGeo, why
> they strategically contacted each 2017 bidders, but I'd love to hear it
> from their mouths.
>
> So I don't believe it is OSGeo that should be the ones explaining
> ourselves now. I think this is the time for LocationTech to explain their
> vision, how it has changed over the years, and how it sees itself in the
> ecosystem, because OSGeo has been around now a long time and their is no
> confusion about OSGeo.
>
> In regards to the current situation, I wish we could start with an MoU,
> work slowly on building a relationship, do not strategically contact
> bidders or groups on either side, but work together on building this
> ecosystem - maybe offering each other a "topic talk" extended session at
> each of our events, maybe discussing becoming a sustaining sponsor of each
> other's foundation, maybe having a shared "working group" on this involving
> both LocationTech and OSGeo board members.
>
> I've done a lot of writing the last couple of days. I hope this at least
> helps explain what is on my mind.
>
> Oh, as some privately enjoy writing to me and saying I am wrong, well yes,
> I am often wrong, but at least I am speaking publicly, and trying so hard
> always to make sure that OSGeo and FOSS4G are properly represented.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-11-12 4:04 PM, Cameron Shorter 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> A few years back, when both Jeff and I were on the board, we co-authored
>> "Board Priorities" [1]. (Ok, I did a lot of writing, but the board did
>> contribute and sign off on it). Prior boards have similarly outlined
>> OSGeo's priorities which have been embedded in our official documents.
>> 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.
>>
>> Jeff, Venka, Jody and others on the board, what is your vision for
>> OSGeo's future direction, and in particular, what is your vision for a
>> future relationship with Location Tech? 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?
>>
>> With regards to private (and threatening emails), I suggest replying
>> with something like:
>> "Thanks for your comments, you have some valid concerns. I'd like to
>> respond to your suggestions publicly so others can join in and we can
>> deal with your suggestions appropriately. Is it ok if I do so?"
>> If you don't get the ok, don't deal with the suggestion. But I suggest
>> refrain from implication of bullying as it implies that LocationTech is
>> playing dirty tactics, which reflects badly on LocationTech and OSGeo as
>> it suggests that the two organisations are unable to resolve issues
>> professionally. (I'm hoping that mentioned "bullying" is just a case of
>> some people getting a bit more passionate that maybe they should).
>>
>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151112/82d88c5e/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list