[OSGeo-Discuss] Renaming FOSS4G

[Steven Feldman]

>> 
>> 
>> 1 to Cameron's concise summary of the importance of simplifying and coalescing around a single identity
>> 
>> Outside of our small well informed community there is confusion re 2 brands, one of which, FOSS4G, we don't even own apparently!
>> 
>> 

Cheers
Steven





>> On 12 Oct 2015, at 06:00, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Venka,
>> 
>> Your points about renaming OSGeo-Live to FOSS4G-Live are valid based on the assumption that OSGeo only supports projects associated with OSGeo Incubation. However I don't think that assumption is valid.
>> 
>> This email also deflects and doesn't address Barry's original suggestions around simplifying and reinforcing the OSGeo message and brand.
>> 
>> OSGeo-Live promotes more than just projects associated with OSGeo incubation, which is in line with the key message on the OSGeo Foundation website:
>> 
>> "OSGeo was created to support the collaborative development of open source geospatial software, and promote its widespread use."
>> 
>> No limitation in that statement.
>> 
>> My key point is a pragmatic one. Both "OSGeo" and "FOSS4G" are good words, and both have established brand recognition. However, having both dilutes our communities' brand and makes it harder to market, which equates to making it harder to attract new users.
>> Using the words "OSGeo Conference" and "OSGeo-Live" reinforces the OSGeo brand, and the word "OSGeo" is slightly easier than "FOSS4G" to remember and explain to people. 
>> 
>> I suggest the OSGeo board invite the OSGeo charter members to vote on:
>> 
>> Should future FOSS4G international conferences be called:
>> 1. FOSS4G
>> 2. OSGeo Conference
>> 
>> Pros:
>> * 
>> 
>> Cons:
>> * 
>> 
>> If you need resources to help manage such a vote, I expect that the OSGeo conference committee should be able to help with that.
>> 
>> Warm regards, Cameron Shorter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151013/8043773f/attachment-0002.html>