Choosing the Choosers

[Lester Caine]

Tyler Mitchell wrote:

> On December 18, 2005 00:05, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
>>Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>>So, I'm partly ambivalent about where the project lives, but partly
>>>focused on ensuring that it lives in a place that helps the community
>>>grow as much as possible.
>>
>>That is perhaps why a tie up with Autodesk raises alarm bells?
>>Autodesk's intentions HAVE to be in their interest...
> 
> I'm not quite sure how we ended talking about Autodesk, I was just making the 
> point that whether MapServer code is available through UMN or a foundation 
> (or somewhere else) is really a moot point for me.  Of course UMN and 
> everyone else involved have their own best interests in mind, but that 
> doesn't mean they are exclusively self-focused, we know that it is not true.  

It was more a matter of WHICH MapServer ;)
Are we talking about the engine that currently is called MapServer and 
providing a framework for supporting that ( which personally I would 
prefer ) or Junior MapServer which is tied up with a product that is not 
MapServer and will not run any current MapServer data.

> MapServer is surrounded and supported by major financial contributions and 
> professional developer time that neither you and I pay for.  This is why we 
> need to have a group manage the bigger picture project related affairs and 
> not just leave it to chance, so that the companies, contributors and users 
> can work collectively in a slightly more formal manner.  At this point, we 
> are not talking about Autodesk or the foundation or any other product, we are 
> talking about the MapServer project and how best to move forward.

MapServer as an entity in it's own right is in a strong position. Some 
of us are just concerned that the 'appearance' of an 'new' MapServer is 
a problem so HAS Autodesk agreed to drop the name. If not then we need 
to have a different discussion.

>>Even if it has nice new tools, I already  
>>have an 'Enterprise' interface into MapServer and don't need the  
>>distractions that an alternative it is creating :(:(
> 
> Choice is usually considered a good thing Lester! :)  And this new choice on 
> the block would have come onto the scene regardless of any hopes of working 
> together.

Firebird has a large selection of third party tools, but they all target 
a single project ( now ). The period when there were different 
development plans and split projects was a drain on resources.

>>Even just drafting this letter is a distraction that I could do without :(
> 
> Really?  I hope it is worth the time to discuss and debate the ideas, so that 
> we can all have some confidence in moving forward.  Everyone's opinion about 
> the MTSC taking on more responsibility is important to have at this point.

But we need to know where we are going before we can have a productive 
discussion. And if Autodesk fits into that road map then the rules change?

-- 
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.