[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Andrea Ross andrea.ross at eclipse.org
Sun Nov 15 11:49:34 PST 2015

Dear Massimiliano,

Your opinion matters a great deal. I don't know if you realized: what 
you have suggested should be, is pretty much what is the case. Let me 
explain to hopefully show this is so.

This is all covered in the FAQ 
to try to make it clear & quick to read for any who are interested.

The people who put together the bids for Ottawa & Philadelphia did 
something positive and bid on hosting FOSS4G in their cities. As part of 
their bid, they very clearly stated that OSGeo would have the very best 
visibility it has ever had at any FOSS4G ever and a payment on par with 
the best ever without any downside risk. In that same sense that FOSS4G 
has ever been "hosted" or "organized" or whatever word preferred, by 
OSGeo, it would be the same, should those cities be selected.

The way the process works, the bid team select whom they wish to 
organize the logistics. And they reached out to LocationTech to hear 
what they could offer. Using Ottawa as an example (Dave McIlhagga, chair 
for Ottawa, shared all of this in public on the conf-dev list), after 
hearing the offer, they decided that they wanted LocationTech to help 
them organize the conference. For what it's worth, the other conference 
organizing firms who participated in the meeting & also heard what was 
being offered, and said openly, clearly, and unmistakably that they felt 
choosing LocationTech was the right choice.

Also covered in the FAQ, LocationTech does organize many events beyond 
FOSS4G. And, for what it's worth, OSGeo projects & initiatives have 
always been welcome at those events. The FAQ also details why there's 
interest in FOSS4G. It is my hope that you & others find it all quite 

Kind regards,


On 15/11/15 20:05, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
> Andrea
> Nevertheless in my simple and neligible opinion and understanding 
> OSGeo never wanted to organize any apache event.
> If valuable OSGeo members want to host and organize foss4g they can 
> certainly do in their name or in the name of their local chapters 
> leaving out LocationTech from the bussines. If LT want to be at the 
> osgeo event they can send proposal and see if they will be accepted 
> and then they are always welcome as a sponsor.
> If we can see that "osgeo" and LT are "sister" organizations then LT 
> could also have a free both and be listed as partner along with other 
> organizations.
> Otherwayaround why LT does not organize its own event and then let it 
> be organized by osgeo?
> Regards
> Massimiliano
> Il 15/Nov/2015 18:48, "Andrea Ross" <andrea.ross at eclipse.org 
> <mailto:andrea.ross at eclipse.org>> ha scritto:
>     On 13/11/15 15:42, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>         On 13 November 2015 at 14:24, Jeff McKenna
>         <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>         <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> wrote:
>             why would you create a separate
>             foundation with the exact same goals, and then later come
>             back to the other
>             foundation saying "no, we love you.  Give us the right to
>             run your event".
>         Bang!
>         Jeff, thank you.
>         Best regards,
>     Jeff, Mateusz
>     I have answered this in my other email but I'll repeat here too in
>     case it's helpful. LocationTech was founded, by many of the same
>     founders and champions of OSGeo, to fill a gap. It has done a
>     pretty good job of this. A bunch of what it does, isn't getting
>     done elsewhere and is needed. None of this was intended to harm
>     OSGeo in any way, and so far as I can see, hasn't even after 3
>     years. Feel free to provide any evidence you can offer to the
>     contrary.
>     People can and do participate in both OSGeo & LocationTech all the
>     time.  This is a good thing. It absolutely isn't a zero sum
>     scenario. The mutually reinforce each other rather than detract
>     from one another.
>     Apache existed before OSGeo so the same argument could be used
>     there. While I can see how it plays to emotions, I'm not sure it's
>     a useful argument.
>     Andrea
>     _______________________________________________
>     Discuss mailing list
>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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/20151115/db64169f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list