FW: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the Foundation

[Pericles S. Nacionales]

Hey, John,

I meant to send that to the list, not just to you.  You can say its 
poisoned but look back to your posts and you'll see that you've really 
not added anything to the discussion.  I'm just pointing it out.

-Perry

John Craddock wrote:

>Hello MapServer "Community"
>I received this poisoned pen email off-list yesterday. A lot of email discussion has flowed across the net since, however, I thought I should respond to it in public as my last "contribution" to this horrid debate. Contrary to the writer's claims, I have the utmost respect for those few great persons who have brought MapServer to where it is today. I am just a simple user and the great multiplicity of us are what attests to the greatness of the effort of the few.
>Without the users, there is no community. What has been lost sight of in this debate is that the efforts of the few pales against the quantum of effort of the users to learn about and implement MapServer even just by shear numbers. In many circumstances user's choices about the future with MapServer are severely limited on account of the level of effort they have invested in it. Please forgive at least some of us for feeling like the Thanksgiving Turkeys.
>The announcement in debate has absolutely nothing to do with the technical excellence of the proponents from the MapServer side. This announcement is the result of a business decision. I, like the rest of the MapServer user community will need to make the decision as to whether the future direction and exposure warrants continuation with MapServer. However, I do reserve the right to criticise the prowess of the business decisions that affect me without the emotive accusations of FUD and doom and gloom.
>I have no truck with AutoDesk in this matter. On the contrary, my first post I think described their move as brilliant, it really is. As a tactical manoeuvre over their commercial competitors they must have left them gasping. Absolutely brilliant for all the reasons set out in my previous posts!
>For me, I just do not like the AutoDesk business model. Furthermore, the spin doctors cannot convince me that this deal is large enough to cause a philosophical sea change within AutoDesk.
>For me, the choice is simple; but I am really "Pd-off" for the amount of my life invested in MapServer. For other users, well some who are more deeply involved may just have to suck it and see! Seems very unjust to me unless, of course some semblance of democracy prevails and the issue is put to a vote or a poll.
>There have been some standout contentions put in the last day or so that just do not stand up to scrutiny. The basic tenet of Daniel Morissette's explanation whilst being feted at AutoDesk is that AutoDesk brings BIG MARKETING CLOUT and recognition. That is a claim that is completely unproven. Just a simple google for mapserver gives 2,910,000 hits against 422,000 for mapguide. What better place to test the exposure rating than the place of application? The professed requirement for NDAs and secrecy is a legal convenience and may be contrary to keeping the stock market fully informed.
>Anyway this is all dying swan stuff, the developers have forked over to the foundation already. Question is how many users will follow?
>Best Regards
>John C
>BTW The foundation is a great idea. However, as Gary points out the AutoDesk lawyers will run it.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pericles S. Nacionales [mailto:nacional at cbs.umn.edu]
>Sent: 30 November 2005 09:21
>To: John Craddock
>Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
>Foundation
>
>
>John,
>
>I'm sorry but I have to take exception to your posts.  Have you no respect to 
>the authors of MapServer and GDAL?  Do you think these guys would really give 
>up on the projects they started for nothing?  Come on, man!  Contribute 
>something more than your doom and gloom messages, something constructive to 
>the discussion.
>
>-Perry
>
>On Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:20, John Craddock wrote:
>  
>
>>Here we go, membership of the foundation: the MapServer community is just
>>about to morph into a clone of the Open Design Alliance (nee Open DWG
>>Alliance). The spin doctors are really at it! How about MTSC and AutoDesk
>>publishing the hard copy of this deal instead of eking it out in disjointed
>>discussion emails. The plot thickens, no membership, no voice.
>>Nothing has been written that assuages the reverse takeover theorem.
>>Regards
>>John C
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Gary Lang [mailto:gary.lang at AUTODESK.COM]
>>>Sent: 30 November 2005 07:17
>>>To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
>>>Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] epiphany about the idea of the
>>>Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian,
>>>
>>>Good points.
>>>
>>>I guess it depends on the context of usage. For example in this case I
>>>said:
>>>
>>>" And to be clear, I wouldn't care which code base they
>>>wanted to use."
>>>
>>>This would seem to be an effective disambiguation of the code
>>>bases. It
>>>wouldn't solve confusion around the foundation and code base
>>>names being
>>>similar, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Apache, OpenOffice,
>>>Eclipse, et al.
>>>
>>>I am still interested in the answer to the question. I think
>>>anyone who
>>>joins the foundation should contribute something. A new project, new
>>>code mods, money, etc.
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Gary
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>