[Mapserver-users] Open Source economy 101 ;) (was: Fastest Data Format)

[GAIA]

Hmmm...I don't necessarily agree with all your points here Daniel, but you do raise some valid ones.  My comments are general as well, and are not directed at anyone, nor are they intended to be negative (i.e., I hate flaming!).

There is a dichotomy faced by Open Source developers that many of us struggle with:  providing resources in an open environment and earning a living!  We walk that fine line and try to maintain a balance, both ethically/philosophically and financially.  I believe we need to sponsor an environment that is truly open in that users are not afraid to ask, or even push for, new features.  In the same token, we need to ensure developers are receiving adequate remuneration--whatever that may entail.  Again, we walk the fine line in my mind.  Enough philosophy for me!  ;)

We would be happy to offer our assistance, but that does not involve C programming (about the only language we don't use here).  It could involve $ to developers if our clients inject some $ into the process or could involve other resources (e.g., test environments, dev environments, etc.).  Many of us are small consulting shops in the same situation as the developers.  Our shop may not spend the time and $ developing the back end of MapServer, but we sure have invested a phenomenal amount of time and $ on the front end and in linking our in-house GIS.  We are stongly tied to MapServer and its purpose (we were the first Linux build of MapServer when using the app still required permission from UMN).

I will try to chase some $ for the SDE feature development as I see it is very important.  If we are to promote the 'fees for service' approach for atypical MapServer feature development, then perhaps there should be some resources to better expose those development individuals and firms.  

Here is a suggestion I would like to pose.  Track new feature requests on the website (we do this for our products) and support 'voting' for the features.  Have the chief developer (i.e., Steve.. apologies for branding you Steve ;) set a threshold  to specify what should receive attention and get rolled into the mainstream dev.,  and its priority level.  In my mind, this would be in the spirit of Open Source in the sense that it would meet the requests of the populous first (not just the ones with $), and in order of priority.  (BTW, I am not suggesting this occurs now).  Obscure, but nonetheless important features could be directed to the development gurus for hire.  I don't know if this seems reasonable, but it may offer a mechanism to control development requests and ensure the dev crew is more visible in order to support them financially.  If anyone needed a feature ASAP, then the dev crew could be contracted to implement the solution quickly (typically, if our clients a!
re in a rush, they are more willing to spend $ to expedite the process).  I still feel, as most will agree, that in the spirit of Open Source, all development, whether contracted or not ought to be rolled back into the main development pool.  Any thoughts on this 'Resource Centre' for lack of better words?  

Again, thanks to the folks behind the scenes creating the engines many of us use daily. 


Cheers,
GAIA