Choosing the Choosers

[Dave McIlhagga]

Hi Lester,

Lester Caine wrote:
> Tyler Mitchell wrote:
> 
>> On December 18, 2005 00:05, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> 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.

As Tyler pointed out - this is for management of the MapServer Cheetah 
(the original) project.


>> 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.

Making MapServer Cheetah's position as strong as possible now and for 
the future is the responsibility of the significant contributors to the 
MapServer project (both technical and non-technical).

One of the decisions that will need to be made is if a shared brand 
strengthens the original MapServer technology.

I continue to believe that it is the right choice for two principal reasons:

1. There will be two codebases for map serving via two products -- but 
if you look under the hood you realize they already share a lot of 
components (proj, swig, geos, etc..) and will likely share more in the 
future. A shared name represents the commitment to work together to 
advance both technologies in an open and inclusive way.

2. Why create competition between projects when it's not neccessary? I 
want to tell people to use the best technology for the problem at hand 
... sometimes MapServer AA, sometimes MapServer BB, sometimes maybe a 
combination of both. The two projects may evolve over time to fill 
different, complementary needs. If adoption of open source technology 
grows -- that should be good for all open source projects right?



>>> 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.

No matter what -- there are going to be two open source map serving 
projects (regardless of what you call them) so nothing will change that.

Absolutely no one has to or should switch technologies unless they think 
it makes sense.

And there is no reason to think third party tools for MapServer Cheetah 
will not continue to be developed.



>>> 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?

A few facts, regardless of these discussions:

1. At some point in 2006 there will be an open source project that will 
be the home for the web mapping technology that Autodesk is donating to 
an arms-length entity.

2. That entity will be open to other open source projects.


So I guess you could say the landscape has changed -- but MapServer 
Cheetah project remains, and remains strong. But we can't rest on our 
laurels -- we have to keep working on making it strong for the future.

That's why this discussion is so important - to make sure the best 
possible decisions are made for the interest of this projects and the 
many individuals and organizations who contribute to and use the technology.

Dave