[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
Jorge Sanz
jsanz at osgeo.org
Sun Nov 15 23:58:38 PST 2015
+1
Well summarized Maxi, thanks.
--
Jorge Sanz
Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity.
El 16/11/2015 07:45, "Massimiliano Cannata" <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
escribió:
> Dear all
> Still i don't understand why LocationTech is pressing so much for
> collaborating with osgeo, or share events at least.
> I've never see this from ogc, apache, ICA or any other organization which
> has his own habitat.
>
> When you create LT you decided to build up your way from scratch, so why
> not just follow your paths and let the collaboration happens gradually and
> based on mutually agreed aims and mutual benefit?
>
> Why don't you draft a MOU to the osgeo community and board to understand
> your suggested area of collaboration so that it could be discussed or voted?
>
> This is to me the key aspect without with there could not be any "official
> work together".
>
> Maxi
>
> Il 16/Nov/2015 02:09, "Andrea Ross" <andrea.ross at eclipse.org> ha scritto:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I think it's great you shared your vision. If you
>> don't mind me saying so, it is important and belongs it a dedicated thread
>> IMHO.
>>
>> You commented on why was LocationTech created rather than within doing
>> what it does more tightly within OSGeo. This is important for people to
>> understand. In my opinion, a very important reason is that in 2011, when
>> OSGeo just fired its executive director and set a very clear direction to
>> be a low-capital organization, it was clear that the kinds of things that
>> LocationTech does wouldn't be practical at OSGeo. Hiring a bunch of staff
>> to perform services for the ecosystem wasn't practical. It still may not be
>> today. The governance would have to fundamentally change to make this
>> doable. Culturally it might be hard too, which is perhaps part of why this
>> conversation is taking place.
>>
>> At the time, it was felt LocationTech was the fastest/easiest/best path
>> to fill the gaps. At the time, it was felt careful stewardship could avoid
>> any harm. We are now 3 years in, and with much care taken all along, I'm
>> pretty sure no harm has yet befallen OSGeo because of LocationTech. And in
>> those 3 years, much benefit has arisen out of LocationTech, including many
>> benefits to OSGeo projects & initiatives. Even financial benefits.
>>
>> Many will remember that there were discussions with the OSGeo board &
>> anyone who was interested before LocationTech was founded, just as it was
>> founded, and many since. So many of the people involved were founders of
>> OSGeo, charter members, board members, and active participants. They
>> continue to be active today. This is why the portrayal of them as outsiders
>> and invaders is so misleading and rather unfair.
>>
>> Jeff, you mention your vision for OSGeo is to be the community for open
>> source geospatial everywhere and anywhere. In an open source community,
>> people contributing effort to do work that needs doing is a very good
>> thing. There's a box around GeoForAll, and that is seen as positive thing.
>> Why is it suddenly a bad thing when work is being done at a place with a
>> box around it called LocationTech? That box has talented staff who
>> specialize in organizing open source (inc. geospatial too) conferences for
>> a living. Why not make good use of them for the benefit of the community
>> and ecosystem? This is what this thread was all about.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> On 15/11/15 21:18, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that you mean well. I hope that maybe seeing my vision
>>> for OSGeo, will help explain myself. I feel that OSGeo and LocationTech
>>> are in fact different, especially in their visions (which would likely be
>>> why LocationTech was formed initially, I imagine there was a good reason
>>> not to help OSGeo grow, not to dedicate that time to instead help change
>>> OSGeo for the better). I realize that it is too late to question why we now
>>> have 2 foundations. I would like to work together, but for OSGeo to have
>>> its own event, FOSS4G. I would like to discuss LocationTech being more
>>> involved in the global FOSS4G, such as through sponsorship or special
>>> sessions. I would like to discuss OSGeo bring more involved in
>>> LocationTech, and am open to your ideas how.
>>>
>>> I hope taking all of today (it took me most of today to compile those
>>> words, which I made many mistakes in ha) helps you see more into my vision,
>>> and explains who I am and where I want to go. I am very ok with people
>>> disagreeing with it. I took a leadership training course for a year (in
>>> 2011), and this made me pull out my old Harvard Business journal print-outs
>>> ha, it was actually a good reason to review all of this. I also know that
>>> a vision does not always work, and could be rejected by the OSGeo community
>>> at large. I am, absolutely putting all of me on the line.
>>>
>>> I am prepared for that as well. Wow, isn't this fun? :)
>>>
>>> Talk soon,
>>>
>>> -jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-11-15 1:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> Again, you make statements like you have below about me/LocationTech
>>>> smoothly courting/calculated/etc going after OSGeo's only source of
>>>> revenue. Perhaps you would like to present your evidence for making such
>>>> negative statements?
>>>>
>>>> Bear in mind that the ample evidence to the contrary is public. Dave &
>>>> Robert have told their stories about how & why they LocationTech as a
>>>> conference organizer for their 2017 bids. Michael Terner shared his
>>>> story too. There was nothing untoward involved, and everything has been
>>>> talked about publicly.
>>>>
>>>> The budget details for those bids are public too and as generous as a
>>>> conservative budget allows. The payment is very much in line with the
>>>> best payments ever received from a FOSS4G, and OSGeo is not on the hook
>>>> for a loss should one occur.
>>>>
>>>> Making such assertions with no evidence to back them up, against much
>>>> evidence to the contrary is unfounded and very unprofessional.
>>>>
>>>> The FAQ we published
>>>> <
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit>
>>>>
>>>> publicly makes the motives very clear. People like myself, Dave
>>>> McIlhagga, Jody Garnett, and many others have been deeply involved in
>>>> OSGeo & FOSS4G since the beginning in many capacities. (so were the
>>>> Founders of LocationTech for what that's worth) All of what we have done
>>>> is public record. We never left the community. We care about FOSS4G and
>>>> care how it is run. We are valued members of the FOSS4G & OSGeo
>>>> communities, have equal right to participate, and not the invading
>>>> outsiders you are attempting to portray us as.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you imply something untoward regarding why LocationTech was
>>>> founded and exists. It was created & exists to fill a gap. And 3 years
>>>> on it is doing a pretty good job of that. As I have said, I am not aware
>>>> of any harm to OSGeo that has come from LocationTech. There was much
>>>> goodness specified clearly in the FAQ stating plainly how LocationTech
>>>> has helped OSGeo. You are welcome to share your evidence to the
>>>> contrary.
>>>>
>>>> As just one more example we didn't put in the FAQ, after a very
>>>> successful FOSS4G NA 2015, $6K USD was paid to OSGeo from LocationTech
>>>> to help support it. The money was provided with no strings attached for
>>>> OSGeo to spend how it see's fit.
>>>>
>>>> Collaboration happens between OSGeo & LocationTech every day without
>>>> fuss. People shuffle back and forth across the imaginary border without
>>>> even thinking about it. It is one ecosystem.
>>>>
>>>> I wish you'd see & acknowledge the goodness and positive things from
>>>> LocationTech. At the very least, without any evidence of anything
>>>> negative, you should really stop.
>>>>
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>> On 13/11/15 14:24, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to value the OSGeo community so much, so much in fact that
>>>>> you would smoothly court all 3 of our bidders for OSGeo's only source
>>>>> of revenue and publicity all year, our beloved global FOSS4G event.
>>>>> It is true that it is "ridiculous", from an organization that
>>>>> (apparently formerly) focused on commerce, to ask OSGeo to pay you
>>>>> (90,000 USD), to take control of OSGeo's only event (worth 1,000,000
>>>>> USD), and then think that this is a fine since you offer (my answer: a
>>>>> polite no thank you) of handling losses for OSGeo's FOSS4G event, in
>>>>> maybe one of the strongest regions for attendees in the world? If we
>>>>> are speaking of commerce, this doesn't make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Maxi said it well, that we all are trying to understand your
>>>>> motives here. How about an MoU together, exchange of official
>>>>> letters, big press release, creating a working group of half
>>>>> LocationTech and half OSGeo board members, an exchange of talks at
>>>>> each others events, become the sustaining sponsor of OSGeo; instead,
>>>>> here we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you value the OSGeo community so much, 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". Ha, pardon?
>>>>>
>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-11-12 7:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is really hard to discuss this topic because you make stuff up. The
>>>>>> concerns stem from the fantasy rather than reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FAQ produced recently
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> does a pretty good job covering the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 3 years, so far as I know, absolutely no harm has come to OSGeo as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> result of LocationTech, and certainly not from any
>>>>>> official/intentional
>>>>>> actions. On the contrary, there's a nice body of ever growing
>>>>>> benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding your new claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * The press releases & charter for LocationTech have not changed.
>>>>>> They're all still up where they always were and haven't been
>>>>>> modified. (seriously?!)
>>>>>> * LocationTech & OSGeo have had formal relations for some time as
>>>>>> Jody
>>>>>> notes. There is all kinds of collaboration happening frequently
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> people are fine with it.
>>>>>> * We gave many examples in the FAQ about LocationTech helping OSGeo.
>>>>>> I'm not even sure that (positive list) was calculated necessarily
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> much as things that arise matter of course from the things the
>>>>>> group
>>>>>> does.
>>>>>> * The evidence is for all to see in the bid proposals, LocationTech
>>>>>> has offered to cover losses and promising payments on par with the
>>>>>> best payments from past FOSS4G's. The numbers are based on a
>>>>>> conservative budget. When you also factor that LocationTech has
>>>>>> sponsored in which money has flowed to OSGeo, your claims
>>>>>> LocationTech is setting sights on OSGeo income are even more
>>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>>> * As Jody & others have noted, the Tour is something that was born
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of LocationTech. It is inclusive to any who want to participate.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> FAQ covers why LocationTech members & projects care about FOSS4G,
>>>>>> and it's very reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's worth saying that people involved with LocationTech have also
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> involved with OSGeo for some time. Your efforts to portray them as
>>>>>> outsiders is bogus. They are as welcome as anyone else to participate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what else to say. It's such shame to have this be
>>>>>> needlessly misrepresented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/11/15 21:58, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151116/37901ad5/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list