Hi all,<br>all that has happened is, for the benefit of developing world, where<br>GIS hitherto has limited itself to the glass facades of multinational companies,<br>and is only meant for those who can afford.<br><br>The Pune exercise is one of the pioneer effort in this direction<br>http://pcmcgisda.org.in/node/gisda<br><br>The OSGeo-India is promoting GIS projects under consideration for other cities,<br>Example: Rajahmundry city, A.P. <br><br>Cheers<br>Ravi Kumar<br><b><i>Gavin Fleming <GavinF@mintek.co.za></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> An excellent book that tells the FOSS story and explores its value<br>propositions and business models is 'The Success of Open Source' by<br>Steven Weber, who writes from the perspective of an 'outsider', a<br>political scientist.<br><br>Gavin<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From:
discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org<br>[mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of P Kishor<br>Sent: 29 August 2007 05:40 AM<br>To: OSGeo Discussions<br>Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Return on Equity<br><br>Very well written Howard. In tribute to your writing, I will promptly<br>snitch some ideas from your writing below.<br><br>I have been tackling this issue of "selling" open geospatial,<br>particularly to agencies for whom generally financial cost is a<br>non-issue. I try to tell them that in most "classes" open source is<br>the best-of-class technologies no matter what yardstick you measure it<br>against. The defining characteristic, of course, is the<br>mob-intelligence quotient. But how do you measure the quality of<br>knowledge produced collaboratively? There is no gross salary number<br>that can be divided by the staff hours. There is no cash-flow, free<br>money, ROE of the contributors... there is return on investment that<br>can be measured, but usually only
after the investment. SLOCs (source<br>line of code) is one measure, but in the world which strives to write<br>as few lines of code to accomplish a task, usually a measure of better<br>software, fewer SLOC would actually be a better indicator of the<br>quality.<br><br>If someone can condense the qualities of open source to a sound-bite,<br>that would be great, but I have been unable to do so. I find that<br>there is a story behind open source, and that story takes time<br>telling, particularly to those who are not familiar with it. For that,<br>one needs to cultivate relationships so folks can become willing to<br>give their time to listen to the story.<br><br>I have been shaping my story along the lines of technology, law, and<br>culture. Open source, unlike other forms of knowledge-production, has<br>innovated along all of these three axes... novel forms of technologies<br>created through novel forms of technologies, innovative legal regimes<br>that are continuously
evolving participatively, and a culture, an<br>ethos, that fundamentally believes that sharing is better than not<br>sharing.<br><br><br>On 8/29/07, Howard Butler <hobu.inc@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> Open source software works because people acting in their own self<br>> interest have the auxiliary benefit of helping everyone in the<br>> project. Report your pet bug, file a patch, add a new feature -- all<br>> of these things immediately help you, but ultimately help the<br>> project. This activity also imparts tangential benefits that are<br>> very hard to quantify but can be clearly important like personal<br>> visibility, credibility, and status.<br>><br>> For an open source software project to be viable as a development<br>> entity, it must be able to bestow these benefits to its individual<br>> contributors. Everyone's reasons may be different, but people must<br>> be able to receive a return on their sweat equity that they put in
or<br>> volunteer effort will not continue to flow into a project. I think<br>> that recognition and facilitation of this symbiosis is a blind spot<br>> for OSGeo. We should be striving to ensure that it can take place<br>> because we are a volunteer organization whose members have common<br>goals.<br>><br>> Wait a second? Isn't OSGeo an Autodesk thing with lots of money?<br>> How is it a "volunteer organization?"<br>><br>> Most of OSGeo's measurable successes to date have been volunteer<br>> efforts, not primarily financially-backed ones. The OSGeo Journal<br>> effort, Google Summer of Code administration, the Geodata committee's<br>> efforts, and even much of our system administration to keep the<br>> lights on for developer tools like Subversion/Trac have been<br>> volunteer enterprises (please help flesh out this list, these are<br>> only those I am most aware of, I know there have been many others).<br>> However, I
think financial resources, both in the capacity to<br>> generate sponsorship money and the ability to spend it wisely, are<br>> what provides the opportunity to set OSGeo apart and provide the<br>> volunteerism leverage.<br>><br>> When Autodesk came in and helped bootstrap OSGeo, it was fairly clear<br>> that our financial existence would not be an indefinite expenditure<br>> -- we would have to exist on our own. Additionally, to meet 503c3<br>> requirements, we cannot have a situation where we have a majority<br>> benefactor as we do now. We're almost two years down the road into<br>> bootstrapping, and our majority benefactor situation has budged very<br>> little. As far as I know, our only significant incoming sponsorship<br>> dollars beyond Autodesk are the "targeted development" vehicles like<br>> those that pay for a permanent maintainer for GDAL.<br>><br>> Another aspect is the sweat equity that has been poured into
OSGeo<br>> over the past year and a half. Committee members, board members, and<br>> of course, especially Frank Warmerdam have been spending a lot of<br>> time bootstrapping. The opportunity cost of this effort has not been<br>> insignificant. I think it is time we take a step back and attempt to<br>> quantify what the return on that investment has been. What has the<br>> existence of OSGeo enabled that could not have happened otherwise?<br>><br>> With some new blood and hopefully new enthusiasm coming to the OSGeo<br>> board, I would like to propose that we challenge the assumptions of<br>> the value proposition of OSGeo in an attempt to focus our efforts.<br>> Other than some minor benefits (or major pains, hah!) of shared<br>> infrastructure (Subversion/Trac) and the arguably beneficial<br>> bureaucratic incubation process, what value does OSGeo provide for<br>> member projects? What is the elevator pitch, one-sentence
value<br>> proposition to a potential sponsor of OSGeo? What is the concrete<br>> return on sweat equity that a volunteer within OSGeo can expect to<br>> earn? We need to think about structural issues OSGeo might have that<br>> hinder our ability to model the Open Source symbiosis described in<br>> the first paragraphs of this email for those with financial resources<br>> or those willing to swing an ax or two.<br>><br>> Howard<br>><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Puneet Kishor<br>http://punkish.eidesis.org/<br>Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies<br>http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/<br>Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo)<br>http://www.osgeo.org/<br>Summer 2007 S&T Policy Fellow, The National Academies<br>http://www.nas.edu/<br>_______________________________________________<br>Discuss mailing list<br>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org<br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br>_______________________________________________<br>Discuss mailing
list<br>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org<br>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br></hobu.inc@gmail.com></blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1>Need a vacation? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48256/*http://travel.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFhN2hucjlpBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwM1BHNlYwNncm91cHMEc2xrA2VtYWlsLW5jbQ--">Get great deals
to amazing places </a>on Yahoo! Travel.