[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Steven Feldman]

Andrea

Please don’t assume that the lack of response to your FAQ means that it is widely accepted. 

I think that you need to recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the various threads (whether you consider them valid or not)  and seek to address them through discussions which are almost certainly best held between the officers of LT and OSGeo not via an email list. 

The voting period for 2017 is nearly over, once the result has been announced let’s try to move forward in a cooperative manner.
______
Steven


> 
> 
> 
> From: Andrea Ross <andrea.ross at eclipse.org <mailto:andrea.ross at eclipse.org>>
> Date: 15 November 2015 at 17:35:37 GMT
> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
> 
> 
> 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> <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 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151116/6bbfd280/attachment-0002.html>