[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo is becoming irrelevant. Here's why. Let's fix it.

[Polimi]

+ 1

Maria


----------------------------------------------------
See you at FOSS4G Seoul: 
http://2015.foss4g.org/
----------------------------------------------------

Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor
Politecnico di Milano

ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications"; OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET 

Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: maria.brovelli at polimi.it
e-mail2: prorettrice at como.polimi.it

> Il giorno 26/set/2015, alle ore 20:35, Siki Zoltan <siki at agt.bme.hu> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Zoltan
> 
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>> 
>> Darrel YOU ARE WRONG.... BUT
>> osgeo is a great and successful community and this alone desrve the OSGeo
>> existence.
>> 
>> Before we only had project oriented communities (mapserver, grass,  etc).
>> But now we have a place in the network to get togheter with all projects
>> and users. Aren't we using stack of softwere instead of a single solution
>> very often?
>> FOSS4G is where we exchange ideas, create innovation and get fun also.
>> 
>> Some excellent work is done also in some working groups... incubation and
>> geo4all for example...
>> 
>> So you are WRONG!
>> 
>> BUT.... i have to agree that things could even be better :-)
>> In my opinion (and this is part of my manifesto even if i still have one
>> more year to serve the board):
>> - we need to redefine objectives of the association cause things have
>> changed (reault framework...)
>> - we need to better promote our valuable software and community (marketing.
>> ..)
>> - we need to review and redefine rules so that they are transparent and
>> clear (communication... )
>> - we need to lower the rates of our international meetings to be more
>> inclusive
>> - we need a plan for investment (investment plan..)
>> 
>> So i call for a face2face meeting of 2 days of all the board members in the
>> next months to discuss all these points.
>> Apparently the last board was not able to set a date, but i'm keen that the
>> new board will be able to do it. It will aslo he agood starting point to
>> define our working plan...
>> 
>> The i call all of you charter member to help and do things... continuing in
>> shaking the community but also propose and act to make the world a better
>> place. Then if you think the world would be better without osgeo... well...
>> be part of the community is not mandatory :-)
>> 
>> Best
>> Proudly member of osgeo
>> Maxi
>> Il 25/Set/2015 21:57, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darrell at garnix.org> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> The recent discussion on the board list
>>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-September/013172.html> that
>>> came out of the question of the 2014 videos has got me thinking about a few
>>> things again, and I want to try to get them out there.
>>> 
>>> Grab a mug of your favorite liquid and hunker down, because I put some
>>> time and effort into this, and your own well considered reply is
>>> appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Keep in mind that all of these comments are coming from my personal
>>> perspective, which, like everyone˙˙s, is an incomplete picture of the whole.
>>> Much of what I˙˙m going to say has been rolling around my head for a while,
>>> so I˙˙m just going to put it out there.
>>> I will start with a provocative thesis:
>>> 
>>> OSGeo lacks visionary unified leadership and without it will become
>>> irrelevant.
>>> 
>>> Of course, making such a claim requires support. So let me break down the
>>> statement.
>>> 
>>> ˙˙Visionary leadership˙˙ is really two things, ˙˙vision˙˙ and ˙˙leadership.˙˙ I
>>> will address each in turn.
>>> OSGeo lacks vision
>>> I looked at the list of ˙˙Goals˙˙ for OSGeo
>>> <http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html>. I wonder: when was
>>> the last time these goals were evaluated for both success and relevancy?
>>> 
>>> Here is my own opinion of success of some of  these goals. (In the
>>> interest of brevity, I haven˙˙t tried to tackle everything. That˙˙s left as
>>> an exercise to the reader.)
>>> 
>>> Example 1
>>> To provide resources for foundation projects - eg. infrastructure,
>>> funding, legal.
>>> 
>>> Allow me to break each of those examples down.
>>> Infrastructure
>>> It˙˙s true that OSGeo provides some infrastructure, such as Trac instance,
>>> Mailman, SVN repos. If the budget is to be believed, we pay some $3,500/yr
>>> to OSUOSL for said infrastructure. I wonder if such a service is necessary,
>>> however. Issue tracking and source control are much better provided by
>>> Github, which is free for organization such as ours.
>>> I say this because a) that˙˙s money that could be better spent elsewhere
>>> and b) supporting these services burns precious volunteer time (more on
>>> that below).
>>> 
>>> There are clear cost savings available, which are not taken advantage of.
>>> For example, OSGeo could be hosting FOSS4G infrastructure: conference
>>> websites and registration, a central location for conference videos
>>> (regardless of platform/provider). This neglect is especially galling given
>>> that FOSS4G is OSGeo˙˙s sole source of income.
>>> Funding
>>> 
>>> OSGeo does not fund projects. It has provided some funds to pay for Code
>>> Sprints ˙˙ $15k in 2014 according to the budget
>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2014>.
>>> Legal
>>> 
>>> I see nothing that has been done on this front recently. Please feel free
>>> to correct me.
>>> Conclusion
>>> 
>>> OSGeo, where it actually does what it claims, has not adapted in ways that
>>> could save money.
>>> 
>>> My grade: D
>>> Example 2
>>> To promote freely available geodata - free software is useless without
>>> data.
>>> 
>>> The geodata working group is dead. As near as I can tell by perusing the
>>> mailing list archives, and the wiki, there has been no meaningful activity
>>> in the past two years (maybe more).
>>> 
>>> My grade: F
>>> Example 3
>>> To promote the use of open source software in the geospatial industry (not
>>> just foundation software) - eg. PR, training, outreach.
>>> 
>>> The Board of Directors
>>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Packaging_and_Marketing>
>>> page says:
>>> Packaging and Marketing
>>> 
>>> OSGeo˙˙s marketing effort has primarily been focused around the packaging
>>> and documentation efforts of OSGeo-Live, and to a lesser extend[sic],
>>> osgeo4w. [˙˙] It has been entirely driven by volunteer labour, with 140
>>> OSGeo-Live volunteers, and printing costs have been covered by local events
>>> or sponsors. In the last couple of years, OSGeo has covered local chapter
>>> expenses required to purchase non-consumable items for conference booths
>>> (such as a retractable banner). In moving forward, OSGeo hope to extend
>>> marketing reach by providing co-contributions toward printing costs of
>>> consumable items at conferences, such as toward OSGeo-Live DVDs.
>>> Local Chapters
>>> Much of OSGeo˙˙s marketing initiates are applied at the local level. In
>>> many cases, this is best supported through as little as an email list and
>>> wiki page. OSGeo also supports local chapters by offering to pay for an
>>> Exhibition starter pack for local chapters. Local chapters are also usually
>>> the coordinators of conferences and related events, as mentioned above.
>>> 
>>> Exhibition starter packs almost never happen; OSGeo-Live explicitly gets
>>> no support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at its own conference to
>>> say nothing of any other conferences.
>>> 
>>> Note: Local chapters certainly do do marketing and outreach, but these
>>> efforts are essentially unsupported by the OSGeo Foundation. In fact, this
>>> goal and the Board of Directors webpage seem to be explicitly
>>> contradictory.
>>> 
>>> My grade: F.
>>> Commentary
>>> I could go on with my own personal evaluations, but I˙˙m not sure that˙˙s
>>> necessary. The only place I see that OSGeo has unquestionably succeeded in
>>> the past few years is the final goal, ˙˙To award the Sol Katz award for
>>> service to the OSGeo community˙˙.
>>> 
>>> So, what˙˙s my point here? It˙˙s simple: there is no longer a coherent
>>> vision for what OSGeo should be. I˙˙ll return to that below, but let me
>>> continue with my other point.
>>> 
>>> OSGeo lacks leadership
>>> Again quoting the Board of Directors˙˙ page:
>>> 
>>> The board˙˙s primary responsibility is to efficiently and effectively make
>>> strategic decisions related to the running of OSGeo.
>>> 
>>> I won˙˙t bore you with the details, but a perusal of the board meeting
>>> minutes would indicate that strategy is rarely, if ever, a part of the
>>> meetings.
>>> 
>>> The emphasis on consensus-based decision making often leads to no
>>> decisions being made. I can˙˙t count the number of discussions that have
>>> come up on the board list only to devolve into a morass of nit-picking and
>>> eventual lack of action when everyone tires of the discussion. What action
>>> that is taken is often to ˙˙delegate˙˙ to a (possibly inactive)
>>> sub-committee, then never follow up.
>>> 
>>> Instead what we have is a great deal of inertia, little interest in
>>> changing things, and no clear indication of what the Board˙˙s priorities are.
>>> 
>>> If priorities do exist, they˙˙re lost in a maze of confusing, incomplete
>>> and often contradictory information on the wiki. (Wikis ˙˙ like abandonware
>>> for documentation.)
>>> On pending irrelevancy
>>> I encourage you to ask some random people in the open source geospatial
>>> community what OSGeo means to them. I would make a bet that the most common
>>> answer is a blank stare.
>>> 
>>> I would ask the board members to come up with three things, other than
>>> FOSS4G, where the OSGeo membership has shown its importance to the
>>> community as a whole in the last two years. Something where people say,
>>> ˙˙Did you hear about [exciting thing] OSGeo is doing on X?˙˙ To be clear, I
>>> don˙˙t mean just things that OSGeo has a finger in, but things that need
>>> OSGeo. If OSGeo disappeared tomorrow, would any of these projects be
>>> significantly affected?
>>> 
>>> I don˙˙t think it can be done. The OSGeo Foundation is sliding into
>>> irrelevancy ˙˙ and it may already be there.
>>> 
>>> If anything should be seen as strategic for OSGeo, it˙˙s FOSS4G, the
>>> foundation˙˙s primary (sole?) source of income. Even regarding its flagship
>>> public event, the board is largely absent. Rather than provide adequate
>>> resources and planning, they instead rely on burning out volunteers, then
>>> make post-hoc demands on the way they should have done it, provide no
>>> future support for organizers to heed those demands, rarely follow up, then
>>> go on to repeat the same mistakes the following year.  Honestly, it˙˙s
>>> surprising that FOSS4G has failed only once. (I think this is a reflection
>>> of the demand for the conference, not the blazing competence of OSGeo.)
>>> 
>>> Michael Gerlek brought this up
>>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-July/014521.html> on the
>>> osgeo-discuss list in July, and probably has a more generous spin on it. He
>>> essentially argues that it˙˙s time to declare mission accomplished and shut
>>> down or rebooted. I agree with his points, and I˙˙m arguing that OSGeo can
>>> have something to offer, but it will require a major re-think of its
>>> mission.
>>> 
>>> Fixing things
>>> I hinted at this in my recent questions to the board candidates, but I
>>> want to be explicit here: OSGeo needs to evolve or die.
>>> 
>>> Here˙˙s how I would do it:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   1.
>>> 
>>>   The board needs to evaluate all of its goals, as defined on the About
>>>   page, to decide if they are still truly goals. Define any new goals.
>>>   2.
>>> 
>>>   Ask the question: ˙˙What does it mean to succeed at this goal?˙˙
>>> 
>>> If the goal is vague, or ongoing, give a timeline: ˙˙What does success look
>>> like for this goal one year from now?˙˙
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   1.
>>> 
>>>   Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask the
>>>   question, ˙˙How will we know if we˙˙ve succeeded?˙˙
>>>   2.
>>> 
>>>   Prioritize the goals.
>>>   3.
>>> 
>>>   Allocate resources to the goals.
>>> 
>>> Obviously this is a tricky one, but I think we can look at this a balance
>>> between Importance and Effort.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Spend money to reduce to the effort required, more money if the goal is
>>> more important ˙˙ this might be the hardest cultural shift. Volunteer time
>>> is precious and easily discouraged. Make sure that you make it as efficient
>>> as possible by spending money when you can.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For example, many of the infrastructure services OSGeo provides can be
>>> easily outsourced to more featureful services that are more responsive and
>>> rely less on volunteer labor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   1.
>>> 
>>>   Close the loop on tasks. When a task is delegated to a committee or
>>>   individual, track its progress, both to know that it is or isn˙˙t happening,
>>>   and to be able to acknowledge and incorporate the work when it˙˙s done.
>>>   Failing to acknowledge people˙˙s labor or to use the results of that labor
>>>   will virtually guarantee that the volunteer does not continue to help.
>>>   2.
>>> 
>>>   Evaluate success and failure.  GOTO 1.
>>> 
>>> Aside: none if this will happen without a strong executive. Whether that
>>> position is paid or not is up to the board, but it˙˙s clear that there needs
>>> to be someone who can make decisions without endless rounds of fruitless
>>> discussions. The board as currently constituted is not dysfunctional, but
>>> it is mostly afunctional.
>>> 
>>> I˙˙m will go so far as to suggest this: Fly every board member who is
>>> available to a two or three day retreat. Get everyone in the same room, a
>>> professional facilitator to speed the process, then figure out what OSGeo
>>> is going to be and how to get there. Don˙˙t fret excessively about the
>>> expense ˙˙ this isn˙˙t about saving money, it˙˙s about saving OSGeo.
>>> 
>>> If you ask me, irrelevancy is a fate worse than death. Be bold! It˙˙s
>>> better to try to do something big and new then fail than to simply fade
>>> away and be forgotten.
>>> Though my comments above may sound harsh, they are sent with the very best
>>> of intentions. I want OSGeo to succeed, but OSGeo is never going to succeed
>>> if it doesn˙˙t know what it˙˙s try to succeed at. Without real reform, I
>>> don˙˙t see success happening, just irrelevance. Here˙˙s hoping this gets the
>>> ball rolling.
>>> 
>>> Darrell
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150926/873c546c/attachment-0002.html>