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

Ravi Kumar manarajahmundry2015 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 27 22:21:33 PDT 2015


+1

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So far I have enjoyed this thread for the number of ideas it brings forth.
>
> Just want to highlight the small difference between a forge (SourceForge,
> Google Code, Gitourious, GitHub) and Foundation (OSGeo, Apache, Linux,
> Eclipse).
>
> Forges tend to focus software version control, build facilities, and
> artifact hosting. They make money by selling these same facilities to
> enterprise, while often accepting open source projects "on board" as a form
> of free advertising.
>
> Foundations focus on projects (license, legal, governance, promotion ..
> some even include a social agenda). When they make money they do so by
> providing vendor neutral table for organizations to collaborate together
> (even if they kick each other under the table on occasion). Software
> hosting services are incidental to these goals - although some foundations
> like Apache take on hosting as way to control the legal exposure that comes
> with hosting code.
>
> One advantage of OSGeo as a foundation is we have the flexibility to allow
> out project to change up which forge they use over time (seeing projects
> migrate from cvs, subversion, SourceForge / GoogleCode / GitHub).
>
> For projects OSGeo provides something to "belong to" and a fair brand
> boost :)
>
> So yeah, if OSGeo rolled up the carpet we would have to set up another
> foundation for the projects the next day.
> --
> Jody
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 26 September 2015 at 12:38, Frank Gasdorf <fgdrf at users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Darrell for such a clear and structured statement.
>> I'd like to add a few thoughts. First I'd like to aggree to the
>> infrastructure thing, in times Open Source projects can get a space (SCM,
>> Ticket system, Build infrastructure, etc) for free everywhere it's kind of
>> wired OSGeo paying for it. Like Jo noticed, things changing over time and
>> maybe here projects can move forward - e.g. like GeoTools and GeoServer
>> did. The point was and still is, that's not OSGeo driven to provide a
>> common infrastructure for OSGeo projects. Each project cares about it's own
>> setup and that burns a lot of volunteering time. However, maybe here can
>> start the discussion, if that would be a benefit for projects.
>> IMHO FOSS4G is a brand, wheras OSGeo isn't. I never has been involved yet
>> organizing a FOSS4G but it sounds like a hugh effort from local teams
>> slightly supported by OSGeo. I love FOSS4G's because its a chance to have
>> face to face meetings with Contributors and Users from all over the world.
>> In the past I remember the WMS shootouts where I got the impression,
>> OSGeo/FOSS4G is the best place it can be happen: Several projects in a
>> battle to improve these all together. Thats making the world a better
>> place..
>> On other levels, would it be worth to setup similiar competitions for
>> other fields: Tile caches, Desktop clients, Processing Implementations and
>> so on. Would that help to push projects and provide comparable values
>> between OS and proprietary projects.
>>
>> Same for codesprints and hackathons... Sponsoring such events helps
>> growing community, improving projects and finally helps users who using
>> this great software stack
>> How can OSGeo help creating Solutions with Components of this stack.
>> OSGeo Live is the first step I guess: Setup things and finding out how the
>> fit together. We learned a lot from other projects within OSGeo live and
>> that improves each project I guess. What's the major output for Users?
>>
>> What about "Long Term Support", would that be a field OSGeo could help
>> projects and users in the same way?
>> Maybe we can think about other sponsoring models, where Companies paying
>> anual fees. What could the expect from OSGeo, what would be an added value
>> for these?
>> And finally, from a uDig perspective: Whats the different between
>> Geospatial organizations such as OSGeo and LocationTech. From my
>> perspective : They have a totally different history, I 'd say community
>> driven vs. company driven, which includes different sponsoring models.
>> Maybe its worth to think about: Whats the driver, the community or the
>> business behind sponsoring companies?
>>
>> Again, Thank you Darrell for initial post, I guess the discussion helps a
>> lot to get a Strategy for the future
>>
>> Warm regards, Frank
>>
>> 2015-09-26 15:29 GMT+02:00 Jo Cook <jocook at astuntechnology.com>:
>>
>>> Hi All, and especially Darrel,
>>>
>>> In his email Darrel articulated some ideas that I have been having for a
>>> couple of years now, but haven't been able to clearly define.
>>>
>>> So firstly I'd like to say that I totally agree with Darrel's points
>>> (and Michael Gerlek's previously)- OSGeo is definitely in danger of
>>> becoming irrelevant. Some of this is down to being a victim of its own
>>> success. The projects have, in many cases, matured and become popular to
>>> the point where they no longer need OSGeo. I'd really like to see a
>>> thorough assessment of our goals and objectives to decide what is still
>>> important. The availability of infrastructure, version control, open data,
>>> etc have improved massively over the last 5 years so now is a great time
>>> for a real spring-clean and decide what we need to keep and what we don't.
>>>
>>> What does the world really need from OSGeo that it can't get from anyone
>>> else? What problems could we solve moving forward? Those are the things we
>>> should focus on.
>>>
>>> I'm currently trying to write an article on open geospatial in 2020 and
>>> I can honestly say I'm struggling to see a place for OSGeo in it. I'd
>>> really like to be proved wrong (and I'd love some predictions for my
>>> article, but that's for another discussion).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jo
>>> On 26 Sep 2015 1:40 pm, "Just van den Broecke" <just at justobjects.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Milo,
>>>>
>>>> That you agree Darrel's statements is your opinion and fine in any open
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I react here on your phrase: '"empty talkers" from my country run for
>>>> charter membership'.
>>>>
>>>> We have 9 Charter Members from the Netherlands, including me. I know
>>>> each of them, and IMO they are far from "empty talkers". They all spend
>>>> long voluntary hours in an array of activities that support OSGeo's global
>>>> and OSGeo.nl local mission and FOSS in general. To name a few:
>>>> Sebastiaan Couwenberg (2015) spends ample time in Debian packaging
>>>> Barend Köbben (2012) helping/speaking at FOSS4G, org academic track
>>>> We all know what Jeroen and Bart have accomplished. I could go on. Not
>>>> all charter members need to make software, some make things happen like
>>>> organizing local OSGeo.nl events and acting in the LOC for the upcoming
>>>> FOSS4G in Bonn.
>>>>
>>>> So I hope your "empty talkers" phrase came out of a sudden impulse,
>>>> that we all have from time to time. I had to react to clarify some things.
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Just van den Broecke
>>>> Secretary OSGeo.nl Foundation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26-09-15 00:12, Milo van der Linden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Being a "don't talk, act" member since 2008, entrepreneur and former
>>>>> chairman of a couple of local initiatives, I strongly agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeing all the "empty talkers" from my country run for charter
>>>>> membership and still not having geoserver, which is the most mature
>>>>> open
>>>>> geospatial product I can think of pas incubation made me completely
>>>>> lose
>>>>> interest in OSGeo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am disappointed, a little frustrated and plotting a business course
>>>>> that values open source and open knowledge. OSGeo or any in-crowd will
>>>>> have no part in my future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your honest and to the point analyses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Milo
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 25, 2015 21:58, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darrell at garnix.org
>>>>> <mailto:darrell at garnix.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>>     explicitlygets no support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at
>>>>>     its own conferenceto 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 strategyis 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 wholein 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 needOSGeo. 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
>>>>>     shouldhave 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?”
>>>>>
>>>>>      3.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask
>>>>> the
>>>>>         question, “How will we know if we’ve succeeded?”
>>>>>
>>>>>      4.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Prioritize the goals.
>>>>>
>>>>>      5.
>>>>>
>>>>>         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.
>>>>>
>>>>>      6.
>>>>>
>>>>>         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.
>>>>>
>>>>>      7.
>>>>>
>>>>>         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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150928/13b6e403/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list