[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 14:11:12 PST 2015
Thanks for the balanced discussion Rob and Jeff:
I have enjoyed the feeling of community at LocationTech, and appreciate
your assistance talking me through raster processing libraries last week.
By the same token the Code Sprint in Philadelphia was a great chance to
build bridges between projects.
I would echo your sentiment that LocationTech is focused on community
building (rather than any kind of restriction to business/commercial
interests).
If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two organizations
today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being "developer
focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I think that is more a reflection
of where the projects involved are in their incubation process that any
strategic difference.
A reason I have joined the OSGeo board is to help keep developers and
projects front and centre on the OSGeo agenda. Difficult when OSGeo has so
much other excellent work going on!
--
Jody
--
Jody Garnett
On 15 November 2015 at 15:09, Rob Emanuele <rdemanuele at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and words, I appreciate the effort you put into
> explaining yourself.
>
> I wanted to clarify one point, based on this text:
>
> > I have followed the development of that organization right from the
> beginning, where they smartly filled a void by aiming at the
> business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial (of course, recently
> they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my sanity, that this was
> false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused instead on the same
> goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT and press release,
> and you will see their early visions).
>
> I believe this is in response to what I had brought up on another thread,
> and I wanted to make sure I was clear. I did not mean to say that
> LocationTech does not aim to fill the void of bringing together the
> business/commercial side of the open source community with the
> users/developers. I took issue with your claim that *the* core goal of
> LocationTech was "to promote business and give those businesses a stage."
>
> As a project lead who's project is incubating at LocationTech and who's
> participated in a number of facets of the organization, I have not once
> felt the pressure of a business trying to promote themselves through my
> work, or that a business was trying to use my work to take some stage. I've
> only felt supported as an open source developer in an open source
> community. Surely this is a goal of OSGeo as well, to have members of the
> open source community feel supported; I would hope that would be in the set
> of goals for any organization in our field. That does not mean LocationTech
> has the exact same goals as OSGeo; they share goals but have their
> differences. The example you rightly point out is that there are specific
> aims towards supporting commercial friendly open source, for instance by
> connecting the open source development work that is desired on the
> commercial side to the support, financial or otherwise, of the businesses
> that desire that work. The point in my original response was that to say
> "the core" goal of LocationTech was to promote business and give business a
> stage, was to imply that LocationTech was at it's core only concerned about
> the commercial side's interests and not those of the developers or users. I
> don't know that I'm fit to speak for LocationTech as a whole, but again my
> experience as a project lead and developer who participates in LocationTech
> is that the core of LocationTech is *not* about pushing business and
> commercial concerns into my work or my dealings with the community. And for
> me, as someone who really believes in the tenets and philosophies of open
> source/libre, and who has taken personal effort to remain vigilant about
> money and power as a potential poison to workings of a community trying to
> operate by those tenets, when someone talks about a whole organization
> being at it's core pushing the interests of powerful businesses, I get
> nervous. I get scared that the organization might taint the open source
> world with it's focus on bottom lines and proprietary ownership. And I
> think we should all remain vigilant about the influences of money and
> power, and that it's good to call it out if there's suspicion. But it's
> also good to call out if an organization is being cast into a poisonous
> role unfairly, which is what I've felt like has gone on a lot while reading
> discussions (not just by you) on this mailing list.
>
> This is again clarifying a response I had to something you had said
> earlier, and I'm not trying to harp on something you had said and would
> rather focus on what you are saying now. I appreciate your recent comments
> on LocationTech and Andrea's work specifically. I just felt the need to
> clarify my point a bit. Again, thanks for the work you put into explaining
> yourself, and also the work you do for the community, much of which I'm
> sure is very opaque to me but is assumed and appreciated nonetheless.
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jeff McKenna <
> jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Thank you for your message. It is very refreshing to speak on this topic
>> openly here, as others would rather send me strong private messages
>> questioning my sanity, and making threats. I realize that many cannot be
>> open on this topic for various reasons.
>>
>> Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very
>> rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation. I am not
>> muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation
>> whenever that is required. If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all
>> year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and "obstructive",
>> then yes you are fully right.
>>
>> Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a
>> big supporter of LocationTech. I was involved in the beginning of
>> LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first subscribers
>> to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside their
>> #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from new LocationTech
>> community members (technical readers will find it interesting to join their
>> IRC channel now on freenode and see the first message that is displayed
>> when entering their channel "LocationTech: location aware open source
>> software friendly to commercialization."). I have followed the development
>> of that organization right from the beginning, where they smartly filled a
>> void by aiming at the business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial
>> (of course, recently they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my
>> sanity, that this was false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused
>> instead on the same goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT
>> and press release, and you will see their early visions). Which is why I
>> asked now to hear the vision of LocationTech (I was not answered, but
>> someone else pointed to an FAQ just made). In any case, no I am not
>> insane, I have always followed LocationTech closely.
>>
>> I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly,
>> and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested in
>> Open Source. In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and represent
>> OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, including my
>> health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow the OSGeo
>> community. In this event I can bet that I will speak personally to over
>> 100 developers, students, decision makers, and researchers; I bet I will
>> personally talk to over 20 businesses looking at OSGeo. Those who know me
>> well know that this is why I make those trips (I don't go for presentations
>> etc.), it is that face to face representation that is so very important,
>> especially in the long run.
>>
>> As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to
>> all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words you've
>> used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first negative ones
>> used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In the big theater
>> room that is the community, there will always be those that disagree with
>> me, and I value their opinion as well.
>>
>> Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes. New
>> committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the scene
>> and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form initially, and
>> I am ok with that. The core community members in the OSGeo foundation know
>> that I support them in every way that I can. I often am actively working 2
>> or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for that region, talking with those
>> regions members, getting them to think of the possibilities, years before
>> the release of the call for hosting. To you and others it looks like I
>> have no innovation, no new ideas, I don't work with community leaders,
>> because you don't see me working behind the scenes for OSGeo. I am ok with
>> that. You can keep going on in thinking this way of me, but I am very
>> proud of what I do for OSGeo, what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.
>> Long-time members of OSGeo know how I have failed in several proposals to
>> past OSGeo boards, and to this day those so-called "failures" are my most
>> proud moments. But yes, you can always argue that I am not innovative and
>> do not help OSGeo.
>>
>> I am also not wired to think of "money" first. I follow my heart and I
>> try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, always, even
>> if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my career. I do it, for
>> the love of OSGeo. I also realize that it is this fact, of how I am wired,
>> that causes conflict with others (another example is my father, who
>> constantly says I should go get a real job and earn the money I deserve, he
>> sees me struggle financially and it drives him crazy). Instead of money,
>> my goal in life is to be happy and do well for society. I feel OSGeo and
>> its local chapters fits in perfectly with my own personal goals, and I give
>> to OSGeo everything I can, every ounce of my being. It is, what I do and
>> what I enjoy.
>>
>> Ok back on track again:
>>
>> I truly feel that Andrea is doing a great job for LocationTech, always
>> has. We have known each other for a long time, since back when I was the
>> MapServer users group chair in Ottawa and she first attended. I have
>> always treated Andrea and LocationTech with respect.
>>
>> (before you say how false that is, I will now go into my vision for OSGeo)
>>
>> Vision For OSGeo
>> ================
>>
>> (I should first state that I have called a face to face meeting with the
>> OSGeo Board members to work together on topics such as vision and the goals
>> of OSGeo, and how to achieve those goals, and that meeting will be in
>> January, attended by all members of this new OSGeo board)
>>
>> "My vision is for OSGeo to be the Open Source geospatial community all
>> across the globe, everywhere and anywhere, and have fun doing it. The
>> OSGeo community is special, we are unique, we do great things for the
>> world, we are open, and we have fun. We accept anyone into our community
>> and will give them the spotlight, to help their local community and the
>> world share its spatial information. We are OSGeo."
>>
>> Many have seen me speak about "community" all around the world since
>> about 2008, and it is OSGeo's community that is so valued. This vision
>> puts our community in that spotlight, and is something that I already know
>> that we all follow in our hearts. It is the OSGeo spirit that drives us
>> all, that some may not understand, but we can teach them and help them
>> share their geospatial information openly, and, show them how fun it is.
>>
>> How to get there
>> ================
>>
>> Focus on Developing Regions
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> Over the next 5 or 10 years, various developing regions ("developing" in
>> the sense of in-progress of becoming world leaders in open) across the
>> globe, not known globally for their OSGeo chapters yet, will be given the
>> OSGeo spotlight. These are important regions of the world, extremely
>> active locally but not as well known globally for their efforts in Open
>> Source geospatial. Some possible examples are South America, South Asia,
>> Russia, China, Middle East, North Africa, and India. OSGeo will help give
>> them the world stage for Open Source geospatial.
>>
>> Local Chapters
>> --------------
>>
>> All of the fun happens locally, it is through local chapters that OSGeo
>> can grow Open Source geospatial software, learn, share, and have fun. We
>> currently have about 30 official chapters, and about 30 in formation, but
>> we have so much more work to do to help chapters grow in other
>> communities. Let's help them! :)
>>
>> Projects
>> --------
>>
>> OSGeo projects and those in incubation are very stable and have vibrant
>> communities. OSGeo must help these projects grow, and also help incoming
>> projects find a home in our community. We must be accepting to changing
>> trends and styles in the global industry.
>>
>> Charter Members
>> ---------------
>>
>> OSGeo charter members will drive the formation of the Open Source
>> geospatial community.
>>
>> Diversity
>> ---------
>>
>> OSGeo must from now on have 50% women on its Board of Directors. This
>> year's board has the first women ever on its board, but for 2016/2017 and
>> beyond, women will again be strongly represented at the board level of the
>> OSGeo foundation. This will help provide strong leadership from OSGeo
>> throughout the world.
>>
>> Education and Training
>> ----------------------
>>
>> OSGeo will continue to spread Open Source geospatial to students and
>> educators around the world, through the GeoForAll initiative. Focus will
>> also change from post-secondary institutions to secondary/high-school,
>> getting the young minds excited and interested in sharing and being open.
>>
>> Professional Service Providers
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> OSGeo will begin to focus on its service providers, and give them the
>> spotlight they deserve, for choosing to operate their business around OSGeo
>> projects. Focus will not only be placed on the larger businesses, but for
>> the first time ever, small businesses will be given the spotlight from
>> OSGeo.
>>
>> (in my travels, I estimate that 90% of OSGeo's service providers have <10
>> employees, yet we are not giving these businesses any spotlight)
>>
>> FOSS4G
>> ------
>>
>> OSGeo's hugely successful yearly event, the global FOSS4G, will continue
>> to travel around the world each year. The goal of OSGeo's global FOSS4G
>> event over the next 5 to 10 years will be to expand to new areas, plant the
>> OSGeo seed locally, learn, share, and have fun. The goal will be to share
>> this passion as much as possible, by having low-cost FOSS4G events.
>> Regional FOSS4G events will satisfy local needs, in however the local
>> chapters desire.
>>
>> Code Sprints
>> ------------
>>
>> OSGeo will actively promote its ability to support all code sprints of
>> any size, no matter if there is only one project being enhanced.
>>
>> Working with other organizations
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> Working closely with other organizations will continue to be important
>> for OSGeo. MoUs with organizations encourage communication, and usually
>> have the 2 leaders of the parties sit down face to face once a year and
>> talk (which is really priceless in the long-term for the commmunity) and
>> review the agreement. Admittedly these agreements are not liked by the
>> business-types, for not offering any firm details up front (like financial
>> benefits), but in the long term these agreements help change opinions, give
>> momentum to both parties, and end up creating jobs in the industry.
>>
>> Standards
>> ---------
>>
>> Standards in geospatial software and data will continue to be one of the
>> core parts of every OSGeo project.
>>
>> Financial Focus
>> ---------------
>>
>> OSGeo has never been about generating revenue. OSGeo is and will be
>> about being the Open Source geospatial community, sharing, learning, and
>> having fun. OSGeo will continue to be lean, earning enough funding to help
>> its annual FOSS4G and other events, maintain OSGeo's infrastructure, and
>> other critical needs. The OSGeo foundation will continue to be volunteer
>> driven.
>>
>> Discussion
>> ==========
>>
>> In terms of what I would do to foster working with LocationTech, I would
>> work with Andrea directly to develop an MoU agreement draft, and then take
>> that draft to each of our Boards. To formalize this agreement, I would
>> call for a "Summit" to be held around March of this year between the
>> LocationTech Steering Committee members, and the OSGeo Board of Directors.
>> This would be a one day meeting, in person, and not related to any other
>> existing event (not added to an existing program/event). This would allow
>> the OSGeo Board to meet in January, establish their goals, and then to sit
>> down prepared with LocationTech Steering Committee in March.
>>
>> I do feel that the LocationTech/OSGeo relationship needs to be examined
>> slowly, and this is why I made a stand here this/last week. I apologize to
>> Andrea if I have offended her, or disrespected her in any way.
>>
>> About the above vision, I am aware that this was likely asked of me now,
>> so that some can point out faults in my thinking, how I am wrong etc. That
>> is ok, I accept that, and I also accept that I most likely made mistakes in
>> writing this vision today, and I am sure the other OSGeo board members will
>> help clarify this in January. I feel the process of creating a vision, and
>> following through with that, should involve each and every OSGeo member, so
>> I feel that I have nothing to hide and everything to gain.
>>
>> I would like to thank everyone, for again, being you, sharing the OSGeo
>> passion, doing what you can, whether it is by teaching, writing, developing
>> code, managing a business, learning something new, or just following along,
>> your help and smile is what gets me through these challenging times.
>>
>> I would also like to deeply thank those who reached out to me this week,
>> during this hard time on me, I will tell you that twice I was brought to
>> tears sitting at my computer here reading the small thanks for representing
>> them, sent from some far away country by a local leader. I do this for you
>> all.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff McKenna
>> President, OSGeo
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-11-13 4:27 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>> As president of OSGeo I've seen in you some admirable qualities. You
>>> regularly travel around the world, talking passionately and eloquently
>>> about OSGeo and Open Source. You monitor and contribute to many email
>>> lists. For people "in the back row of OSGeo" you do a great job of
>>> encouraging people to step forward and get involved.
>>>
>>> But, in supporting other OSGeo leaders, who might have a vision that was
>>> not directly derived or aligned with your own, I've found your opinions
>>> to often be very obstructive, confrontational, and lacking of any
>>> innovative vision to resolve differences. This is inappropriate from a
>>> community leader. It is the sort of behaviour likely to turn people away
>>> from a community, and have them look for another community to work with.
>>>
>>> With regards to the relationship between OSGeo and LocationTech:
>>>
>>> * Could you please acknowledge that Andrea is also working toward the
>>> best interests of the Open Source Geospatial community, even if she is
>>> using a different path and vehicle to achieve this.
>>>
>>> * Could you please treat those who have a different opinion to you,
>>> Andrea in this case, with respect and dignity, even if in your eyes they
>>> are wronging you or what you believe in.
>>>
>>> * Rather than just tell LocationTech what they shouldn't do, provide
>>> some vision and leadership and suggest what should be done instead.
>>> (This is much harder). You may note that Andrea has answered your
>>> questions as best she could in her FAQ.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> A bit of background and reality check: From memory, the FOSS4G 2009 PCO
>>> was paid ~ $70,000 for managing the FOSS4G conference, and OSGeo
>>> guaranteed the conference, not the PCO. OSGeo was lucky in 2012, when
>>> FOSS4G was cancelled [1] and OSGeo didn't have to pay cancellation
>>> expenses. Based on estimates of exposure for recent conferences, this
>>> would likely have been a lot over $100,000. So being paid $90,000 to run
>>> and guarantee a conference is in the right ball park.
>>>
>>> Year after year, after FOSS4G, there is discussion about the loss of
>>> knowledge between conference organising teams. There is a clear
>>> opportunity to have a PCO, or person take on a perpetual role supporting
>>> FOSS4G events. For the first time, LocationTech has put a practical
>>> proposal forward to fill this role, and help make FOSS4G better. This is
>>> great, it would be solving a real problem. We might not accept the
>>> proposal, but we certainly should not accuse LocationTech of foul play.
>>>
>>> Jeff, you've dismissed my request for a vision. (I acknowledge that
>>> compiling a vision is difficult, and typically involves a collation of
>>> lots of ideas from within the community). Here are some questions which
>>> might help:
>>>
>>> * Should FOSS4G be run at minimum cost to delegates, or should it aim to
>>> make money to fund OSGeo?
>>>
>>> * There are many valuable activities which OSGeo doesn't implement due
>>> to not having volunteers step up, or having people step for a limited
>>> period. Should OSGeo hire someone to implement such activities? Eg: Hire
>>> someone or some organisation to support knowledge sharing between foss4g
>>> conferences, have someone manage marketing, have someone chase sponsors,
>>> ... Ie. Should OSGeo act as a low capital or high capital organisation?
>>>
>>> * Is there anything wrong with there being both low capital (OSGeo) and
>>> high capital (LocationTech) organisations, both of which address
>>> different users and capture difference communities? Both organisations
>>> are running effectively now. Should they be restructured? If so how?
>>>
>>> * There has been mention of a MOU between LocationTech and OSGeo. Fine.
>>> But what next? A MOU is just a first step, a means to an end, and by
>>> itself is of little practical value.
>>>
>>> * A lot of thought was put into these questions and captured into the
>>> OSGeo Board Priorities [2] a few years back. Do these priorities still
>>> capture OSGeo goals? Please don't say what you don't want without
>>> encouraging and ideally contributing to what you want instead.
>>>
>>> * Note, if you don't articulate a practical vision to follow, it will by
>>> default be determined by someone else.
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2012_Lessons_Learned
>>> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities
>>>
>>> On 14/11/2015 12:24 am, 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/20151116/597e9ba5/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list