Fwd: [OSGeo-Discuss] Project Sponsorship Proposal (call for feedback)

[Steve Lime]

Sorry to respond late, long weekend with a holiday here. Comments
inline.

>Stephen Lime
Data & Applications Manager

Minnesota DNR
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-259-5473
>>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM> 09/01/06 1:57 PM >>>
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> 
>> Money would be spent at the discretion of the PSC.  It the case of
GDAL, my
>> hope is to fund 3-6 month "maintenance contracts" with up and coming 
>> software developers with a demonstrated interest and aptitude.  We
might try to 
>> do the same for MapServer, though supporting such developers might be
hard.  We 
>> might also consider letting contracts to existing consultants with
expertise in
>> desired areas (ie. MapGears, DMSG, Howard, you, etc).
>> 
>> I have to say I'm nervous about the effect having money available for
some
>> things might have on other areas.  But ultimately most work on
mapserver 
>> has been funded in the past via various mechanisms.  I see this as a
way of
>> pooling money from interested supporters in a meaningful way to
accomplish
>> various unglamerous work items, that might otherwise never get taken 
>> care of by any single contract.
>> 
>
> I understand very well that this would be an optional mechanism and 
> especially useful to fund stuff that paying clients are unlikely to
pay 
> for, but I am worried about the impact that this money could have on
the 
> relationship between the individual members of the PSC. Simply put, I 
> find that it may be hard to insure that this money is spent fairly and

> in the best interest of the project. This comment applies to all OSGeo

> project and not only to MapServer.
>
> As I'm sure you realize, the people who are the most likely to be able

> to use this money efficiently are for the most part the voting members

> of the PSC. So we end up with PSC members voting on money allocation
for 
> themselves, with all the appearence of conflicts of interest and other

> politics and possible tensions that may come out of that. If I vote 
> against money going to developer A for something that I do not
consider 
> worthwhile, then how will they vote next time I make a proposal to get

> some money from the foundation for a something that *I* consider 
> worthwhile?

I'm not sure how you work around that concern though. I'd like to think
that
with a project as "mature" as MapServer this wouldn't be that big an
issue.
Plus, I think part of the PSC's job would be to set priorities
independant
of funding (perhaps with cost/effort estimates) and then just knock
those
issues off in turn. That priority setting is a missing ingredient now.

> When developers get money from their own clients for enhancements to
the 
> software or bug fixes, the rest of the PSC has no word on the rates
that 
> you charge, amount of time you spend, whether the feature is worth the

> money or not, etc. You are only judged by the PSC on the technical 
> merits of the RFC that you submit for approval and whether that fits
in 
> the big picture of MapServer, and that's perfect this way.

I don't think we're talking about not allowing direct investment as it
has always
been, correct? In these cases we operate without regards to priorities
and 
that's fine and could continue.

> When we add foundation money into the mix, then I'll have to be
careful 
> with my votes and keep in mind that if I turn down too many proposals 
> then I risk seeing my own proposals turned down as well. Plus we all 
> work for different rates, how do we account for that? Some people make
a 
> living out of this while others have real jobs and do MapServer stuff 
> only on the side and don't seem to care that much whether they get
money 
> for their work or not. Finally, some people who never had any real 
> interest in contributing to MapServer so far may decide to submit 
> proposals only because they smelled the money opportunities, which
would 
> be unfair to those who have invested thousands of hours of volounteer 
> time in the project.

Again, I don't think you say "we have $10,000 what should we do". That
list
should be set ahead of time. Deciding who should do the work could be
done
using a proposal process with some sort of  quantitative assessment
based on
cost, time to delivery, project experience, etc...

> Are there examples of other software projects/foundations that work
this 
> way and that we could look at? I'd be interested to see real life 
> examples to find out whether those issues are real or just my
imagination.

> Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/

Anyway, all good points. Would be nice to be able to work through them
as this
might be a nice way to get the ugly stuff handled. Note that even
without the 
foundation this could be an issue. For example, if group A says here's
$10,000
to maintain MapServer. What do we do?

Steve