[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

andrea antonello andrea.antonello at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 01:11:44 PST 2015

Thanks for this Steven,

> 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.

I totally agree with this.

To be honest I had my hands itching at least 100 times during this
discussion and I am so glad I didn't write out of passion.
Also, the reason why I didn't enter the discussion, is that many
already had expressed at least partially what I was thinking (mostly
Massimiliano and Jeff).

But I honestly do not see how a discussion around such a complex topic
can be solved on a mailinglist.

I am voting for someone to represent me at a certain level and I find
that this discussion should be brought to a different level than a
public discussion mailinglist, in which some people might bump in
pushed by passion/anger.

Given how some people/organizations have felt offended in the thread,
I think this is the moment in which this should be taken to the
"officers of LT and OSGeo", as Steven wisely proposes.

All the best,

> ______
> Steven
> From: Andrea Ross <andrea.ross at eclipse.org>
> Date: 15 November 2015 at 17:35:37 GMT
> To: 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the Discuss mailing list