MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions

[Gerry Creager N5JXS]

Paul,

I hate to have to add fuel to the fire, but I feel I need to comment.

Ed's comments were lengthy, but you managed to dismiss them in a single 
sentence.  However, he's on-target about several key points.

I recall, at the last MUM, the comments about a closed group to better 
guide future releases.  However, in general, the process has maintainted 
the appearance of openness and bugs were readily discussed, as were 
feature additions.  This may, in retrospect, have announced the initial 
closure of the organization.

Mapserver has been a stellar community effort.  Locking down the group, 
creating the Foundation, and springing it on this same Community, has 
had a chilling effect.  Yesterday, with the initial announcement, I was 
excited.  Today, having read the Open Letter more closely, and the press 
releases, I now share the concerns Ed so eloquently articulated.  I 
can't effect significant change on the Foundation.  My University can't 
effect significant change... I don't see a mechanism for my University 
to participate, save as a user.

I've been involved in organizations who morphed in this manner before, 
and unfortunately, it's usually resulted in the organization being taken 
over by the corporate partners.  There are shining examples of this not 
happening: OGC's roots are in corporate sponsorship but they've been 
refreshingly non-partisan... although there's a tendancy to reflect a 
product as being OGC compliant when it meets some subset of the 
testing... and the rather staggering costs associated with official 
compliance testing: Mapserver's not been tested recently, as I recall, 
for this very reason.

I, too, object to the terms "Mapserver [insert favorite animal here]" 
and "Mapserver Enterprise" as the impression is the tool I have been 
using so successfully, the one I've been promoting to my ESRI-using 
colleagues, and where I've demonstrated often equal or better 
performance, is a toy, and this newly advertised addition, somewhat 
largish and hard to downlaod and implement initially, is better, more 
secure, has an improved pedigree and is a real "enterprise-ready" (note: 
ISO-9002 buzzword-compliant) product.  Oh... and yes, let's capitalize 
on the term Mapserver.

So: I'm frustrated.  This isn't directed at you, Paul, but more at the 
process and the participants who elected to keep this process a secret 
from the Community whove been supportive in the past.  A Community that 
would likely benefit from this concept in the future.  But not a 
Community likely to benefit from an advertising exercise for pure 
corporate gain.  I work for a University, and I have several projects 
that depend on this technology.  I can't make money off it. I can 
support its development periodically, and I can provide thoughts and 
suggestions.  But where's the benefit for me if I can't implement the 
product most likely to see the improvements, and if I cannot create the 
working files for that package because it requires a computer operating 
system that has been deemed unsafe in our environment?  No, Virginia, I 
don't have a spare Windows workstation.

I don't know how to resolve this, or who will.  I do know I'm 
disappointed at how all this came about, and my inability to effect 
change.

Respectfully,
Gerry Creager

Paul Spencer wrote:
> Puneet,
> 
> re legal indemnification, I don't think the intention is for Autodesk
> to provide that (directly).  Autodesk is funding the creation of a
> separate legal entity (think Apache Foundation) and that legal entity
> will be tasked with determining what it will provide and how.
> 
> Lowell, thanks for the support ...
> 
> Ed, I'm sorry that you feel this way but you certainly have the right
> to express your opinion ...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 29-Nov-05, at 12:23 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> 
>> I must underscore that I am not alluding to any conspiracy of any
>> sort. I am only alluding to the facts that --
>>
>> 1. Putting commercial entries as sponsors of opensource, Autodesk
>> or any other, in the manner that it seems like in the case of
>> MapServer, takes something away from the grassroots community
>> aspect of it all. DMS is fairly innocuous here, and I have little
>> reason to doubt them. I have known them for several years, and some
>> of them are my friends. Others may rightly or wrongly feel
>> differently. I can certainly understand Ed's point of view given
>> his position as a business owner of a similar scale. But, does
>> Autodesk being in the fray preclude, antagonize, or even attract
>> other similar sized commercial entities? How will ESRI or
>> Intergraph or Mapinfo or even Oracle and/or Microsoft (all with
>> interests in GIS and mapping) react?
>>
>> 2. The nomenclature does make it seem like the real MapServer has
>> gotten the short shrift. First there was 'classic' or 'lite.' Then
>> came 'professional.' Now Enterprise seems to be all the rage. I
>> could imagine M2EE (MapServer 2 Enterprise Edition), but MapServer
>> Cheetah just doesn't have the same feel other than providing a
>> convenient pencil cover art for the next O'Reilly mapping-made-easy
>> edition. It does seem like Autodesk is making out here on the
>> goodwill established by MapServer. If not a fork of the source, it
>> certainly will be a fork of the energies. I highly doubt the same
>> folks will be able to contribute to both causes with equal vigor.
>>
>> On the other hand, yes, legal indemnification might be worthwhile
>> attraction. Does Autodesk really provide that? To what extent? I
>> haven't done my due diligence on all aspects of the deal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lowell.Filak wrote:
>>
>>> Just as a side-note I can't envision UMN, DM Solutions, & Autodesk
>>> lumped together in the discussion. While I understand the points
>>> made and responsibility must be shouldered. I also know that DM
>>> Solutions & UMN has always put Mapserver first.
>>> I think Steve alluded to the legal protection aspect that comes
>>> with Autodesk. Wasn't it a couple of years ago that a copyright
>>> holder threatened to sue the world of internet mapping? We thought
>>> it was a joke but...
>>> Is it possible that DMS & UMN felt the need (pressure) to do it
>>> NOW (aka. our next generation app is ready and we need to beat
>>> Goliath to market or else we pull out of negotiations)?
>>> Lowell
>>> Puneet Kishor writes:
>>>
>>>> Greetings all (and Ed). I re-joined the list today on coming
>>>> across the Autodesk newsblurb. My immediate feeling was, "If you
>>>> can't beat 'em..." The "you" was Autodesk, and "'em" was you-know-
>>>> who. That was followed by a little bit of giddyness, as it meant
>>>> that my beloved MapServer was going high profile. I immediately
>>>> darted off a congratulatory note to the pater of MapServer. But,
>>>> the feeling has worn off; and Ed's very thoughtful (and wordy)
>>>> note below has reinforced some of the diffidence that I feel.
>>>> First, I do feel that MapServer seems to get the second place
>>>> here. Everyone and their janitor wants "Enterprise." This Cheetah
>>>> bullshit ain't gonna work. Makes MS-C look sound like a hobby-kit.
>>>> Second, Autodesk gets a big, free PR thing out of it, and it
>>>> doesn't even work on a Mac... I mean, give me a break.
>>>> I am all for the foundation, have been from the day I chimed in
>>>> my support at Ottawa... we all wanted to know where to send the
>>>> check of support, and a foundation would have been such a recipient.
>>>> This foundation is a bit of a squib, unless one's shilling for
>>>> Autodesk.
>>>> That said, I am not as pessimistic as Ed might sound... yes,
>>>> there never will be another "founder" other than those involved,
>>>> and yes, personally, I would rather think of UMN as a founder
>>>> instead of any other commercial entity. But, the key is to find a
>>>> way out/around this, and get the MapServer brand as de-
>>>> commercialized as possible.
>>>> And, for heaven's sake, lets get the Enterprise moniker.
>>>> Ed McNierney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks -
>>>>> This morning I sent a few comments about the MapServer Foundation
>>>>> off-list to Steve Lime, and (at my request) he forwarded them on
>>>>> to some
>>>>> of the other folks involved.  After a comments by a few folks
>>>>> there were
>>>>> requests that I post my messages to the broader community.  This
>>>>> post is
>>>>> an attempt to do that in a consolidated way.  I apologize for being
>>>>> wordy, but there's a lot to say.
>>>>> I've been a member of the MapServer "community" for several
>>>>> years now.
>>>>> The Foundation project is the first time I can ever recall there
>>>>> being a
>>>>> conscious, ongoing, and deliberate attempt to exclude most of the
>>>>> community from a discussion of significance about MapServer.  A
>>>>> small
>>>>> number of people - some of whom are dedicated developers who've
>>>>> contributed far more than I ever have - decided to enter into
>>>>> discussions that included two commercial firms (DM Solutions and
>>>>> Autodesk).  No one else got to participate, and the work was
>>>>> deliberately kept secret.  Doesn't sound like much of an "open"
>>>>> project
>>>>> to me.
>>>>> A MapServer Foundation is a very, very good idea.  This MapServer
>>>>> Foundation has gotten off to a very, very bad start.  I find
>>>>> myself in
>>>>> the position of being quite reluctant to support this instance of a
>>>>> concept I eagerly wish to support.
>>>>> I think I should start by explaining why I think a MapServer
>>>>> Foundation
>>>>> is a very good idea (as opposed to what others think, even
>>>>> though we
>>>>> generally seem to agree).  MapServer has been well-served by the
>>>>> technical and development community that supports it.  It has
>>>>> mainly
>>>>> lacked many of the things that make a "program" a "product".  It
>>>>> needs
>>>>> better documentation, easier setup and sample sites, product
>>>>> summaries
>>>>> and literature, feature/benefit brochures and comparisons,
>>>>> benchmarking
>>>>> tests, presentations, a coordinated trade show/conference plan,
>>>>> better
>>>>> marketing, directories of consultants, reference sites, etc.  I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> mean to denigrate any of the efforts made along any of these
>>>>> lines, but
>>>>> I think we all know there are things you can currently get from
>>>>> commercial vendors that aren't available with MapServer.  A
>>>>> Foundation
>>>>> would be a great way to provide these things.  It wouldn't need
>>>>> to get
>>>>> in the way of the development work, and could complement it by
>>>>> filling
>>>>> in the blanks.
>>>>> All of that takes money.  A MapServer Foundation needs funding
>>>>> to do
>>>>> these things.  Fortunately, there are several subsets of the
>>>>> MapServer
>>>>> community that are in a position to contribute funding.  There are
>>>>> commercial users of MapServer (folks like me, GlobeXplorer, etc.),
>>>>> commercial developers/consultancies like DM Solutions and
>>>>> others, and
>>>>> the government and educational users who tend to not have much
>>>>> money to
>>>>> spend but can usually contribute something.
>>>>> To date, organizations interested in financial support for
>>>>> MapServer
>>>>> have been limited to funding specific software development
>>>>> tasks.  The
>>>>> pace of that development has been such that every time I raise
>>>>> an idea
>>>>> about a project TopoZone could fund, it seems that someone else has
>>>>> gotten there first.  I could have chipped in money for "future
>>>>> development", but there was no place to put it - it didn't make
>>>>> sense to
>>>>> just send Frank or Daniel or Steve a check and tell them to try
>>>>> to spend
>>>>> it somehow.  And I would rather fund the "other stuff" than fund
>>>>> feature
>>>>> development - there's more of a need for it.  A Foundation could
>>>>> fix
>>>>> that, by providing a place that takes in revenue from members and
>>>>> sponsors, and uses that revenue to fund projects - probably
>>>>> non-development projects as I mentioned above, since those won't
>>>>> get
>>>>> funded otherwise.  The OGC membership model is a relevant and
>>>>> simple
>>>>> example of this sort of thing.
>>>>> So what does the Foundation need to do that?  It needs to be
>>>>> open and
>>>>> inclusive, eligible to all to participate as peers or as peers
>>>>> within
>>>>> certain classes of membership.  It needs to be independent of any
>>>>> particular sponsor, and it also needs to APPEAR to be
>>>>> independent.  It
>>>>> needs to have a clear mission and it needs to simplify and clarify
>>>>> things for its members and for its constituent base.  It needs
>>>>> to be
>>>>> seen as the unswerving voice dedicated to the support of
>>>>> MapServer and
>>>>> nothing else.
>>>>> Today's announcement missed those goals by a wide mark.  Some of
>>>>> those
>>>>> errors can be corrected, but some we'll have to live with
>>>>> forever.  And
>>>>> most of them could have been avoided by the kind of open, inclusive
>>>>> discussion we've always had in the MapServer community - until now.
>>>>> Supporting the MapServer Foundation is a great PR and marketing
>>>>> opportunity.  It appears that Autodesk and DM Solutions were
>>>>> extremely
>>>>> aware of that, and made sure that they didn't have to share that
>>>>> opportunity with anyone else.  Being a "founder" is very
>>>>> important, and
>>>>> you've already seen Autodesk and DM Solutions take advantage of
>>>>> that
>>>>> through their own press releases today.  No other company will
>>>>> *ever*
>>>>> get that chance - the press doesn't really care about the next few
>>>>> companies to sign on.  When I created TopoZone in 1999, it was
>>>>> incredibly important to be the first topographic map site on the
>>>>> Web,
>>>>> because the PR value was so great.  I suspect very few folks
>>>>> remember
>>>>> who launched the second one....
>>>>> Companies will be attracted to sponsor the Foundation because of
>>>>> that PR
>>>>> value.  Unfortunately, that value's gone and nothing will get it
>>>>> back.
>>>>> I'm certainly a potential financial supporter of the Foundation,
>>>>> but I'm
>>>>> also running a business.  I can't simply give money away, but I can
>>>>> spend it on things that give me PR and marketing value.  I could
>>>>> spend a
>>>>> pretty substantial (for me) sum as an annual commitment to the
>>>>> Foundation.  I am now a *lot* less inclined to provide that
>>>>> support to
>>>>> this Foundation, because the value (in PR and marketing terms) is a
>>>>> whole lot less than it would have been if I could have been
>>>>> invited to
>>>>> the party.  I'm certainly welcome to sign on and take a seat
>>>>> right up
>>>>> near the front - as long as it isn't in the front row.
>>>>> I don't say that because I'm personally miffed at being excluded
>>>>> - I'm
>>>>> just TopoZone.  I say that because we'll never know how many
>>>>> firms and
>>>>> how much financial support could have been raised if someone had
>>>>> tried
>>>>> to solicit input and support in an open, inclusive way.  There
>>>>> are lots
>>>>> of us out here.  I've been told that it's "incredibly important"
>>>>> that
>>>>> the Foundation be seen as vendor-neutral and that it not be at
>>>>> the mercy
>>>>> of a single funder's contributions.  Sounds good, but don't tell
>>>>> me that
>>>>> now - those are both reasons to solicit a larger number of
>>>>> contributing
>>>>> founding members rather than selling the whole package to Autodesk.
>>>>> It's not easy to undo that; the Foundation is clearly already
>>>>> seen as an
>>>>> Autodesk initiative by the press (in part because Autodesk has
>>>>> tried to
>>>>> make that point clear) and not many firms are interested in
>>>>> throwing
>>>>> money at Autodesk - they've got more of it than I do.
>>>>> My second huge concern is the branding/product lineup for the
>>>>> Foundation.  I woke up this morning to two MapServers where we
>>>>> had one
>>>>> before.  One of them has the impressive-sounding name "MapServer
>>>>> Enterprise" while the other is currently named after a large
>>>>> pussycat
>>>>> but may or may not be open to the possibility of being named
>>>>> after a
>>>>> different mammal.  There's no doubt in the potential customer's
>>>>> mind
>>>>> which one is the grown-up, field-tested, production-ready,
>>>>> scalable,
>>>>> capable system.  Unfortunately, they're thinking of the wrong one.
>>>>> Branding really matters.  It's very important.  Tyler Mitchell
>>>>> says so,
>>>>> too, on the new MapServer site.  Autodesk has zillions of people
>>>>> who
>>>>> know that very, very well.  They just bought a great brand and
>>>>> MapServer
>>>>> suddenly managed to take a back seat to itself, something I
>>>>> would have
>>>>> thought anatomically impossible.  They've managed to appropriate a
>>>>> well-respected brand name and take center stage with it.
>>>>> Autodesk's
>>>>> press release takes advantage of that ambiguity by introducing
>>>>> Steve
>>>>> Lime as the "creator of MapServer" without saying which one they're
>>>>> talking about!  Speaking of press releases, in an effort like
>>>>> this it is
>>>>> common for all founding members to see and sign off on each other's
>>>>> press releases in advance, something which appears (from some
>>>>> developer
>>>>> comments) to not have happened here.  This is PR 101 stuff - if you
>>>>> don't try to keep what you're doing a secret, you might get helpful
>>>>> advice.
>>>>> The same is true, by the way, about the questions raised on
>>>>> Autodesk's
>>>>> patent policy.  This should NOT be an open question *after* the
>>>>> announcement - Autodesk's patent portfolio and their defense of
>>>>> it are
>>>>> well-known.  It should have been one of the first questions
>>>>> raised and
>>>>> answered.  Once the Foundation's plans were made public it only
>>>>> took a
>>>>> few hours to bring it to everyone's attention - remember the
>>>>> benefits of
>>>>> open development?
>>>>> The "MapServer Enterprise" product just got inserted into the
>>>>> MapServer
>>>>> family by decree.  Customers know very well that when they see two
>>>>> similar products side-by-side, usually due to a merger or
>>>>> acquisition,
>>>>> they sit back and wait to see which one gets killed off.  This
>>>>> usually
>>>>> has the effect of discouraging adoption of BOTH products, because
>>>>> customers don't know which one to implement and don't want to
>>>>> make the
>>>>> wrong choice.  Believe me, I've been a CTO standing up in front of
>>>>> customers in that situation more than once - they don't believe
>>>>> you can
>>>>> serve two masters, and they're right.
>>>>> Does the Apache Foundation offer two Web servers?  Apache
>>>>> Enterprise and
>>>>> Apache Other?
>>>>> Can't kill off MapServer, you say?  Perhaps not in a technical
>>>>> sense,
>>>>> but if there's a MapServer Foundation and a MapServer
>>>>> Enterprise, who's
>>>>> going to notice if that other thingy doesn't get the same amount of
>>>>> attention?  Perhaps the platypus is indeed a good choice, as it may
>>>>> belong with the nearly-extinct monotremes.  You can't kill the
>>>>> MapServer
>>>>> code, but you can certainly kill the brand.  Please don't
>>>>> confuse the
>>>>> two.
>>>>> Why was the Foundation "announced" when it apparently doesn't
>>>>> actually
>>>>> exist?  It seems like today's announcement was designed
>>>>> primarily to
>>>>> maximize the PR value to DM Solutions and Autodesk - after all, the
>>>>> press got briefed about it before the rest of us did.  As far as
>>>>> I can
>>>>> tell, there isn't any foundation, but when we get one it's going
>>>>> to be
>>>>> great and open to all, because DM Solutions and UMN and Autodesk
>>>>> have
>>>>> all assured each other that it will be.  Each time I hear that
>>>>> "now's
>>>>> the time to participate", I cringe because I'm being told that
>>>>> by the
>>>>> exclusive group who deliberately prevented all of us from
>>>>> participating
>>>>> until they decided they had gotten what they needed out of it
>>>>> and it's
>>>>> now OK to let the rest of us inside.  The time to participate
>>>>> was last
>>>>> week, or last month, before anything got announced and before we
>>>>> were
>>>>> all handed the Foundation.  If the Foundation is really a
>>>>> genuinely open
>>>>> opportunity for us, then tell us that the inclusion of Autodesk's
>>>>> product isn't non-negotiable.  Do the rest of us get to insert
>>>>> MapServer-branded products whenever we want to?
>>>>> All of these problems were preventable.  All it would have taken
>>>>> was an
>>>>> open discussion of the proposal.  You get a lot of people
>>>>> spouting off,
>>>>> and then you find out who's really interested.  You find out how
>>>>> many
>>>>> commercial sponsors you can get and at what level of support.  You
>>>>> create what appears to the public as a truly open consortium that's
>>>>> worth watching, instead of one that triggers discussions about
>>>>> Autodesk.
>>>>> You demonstrate right from the start that you have a broad base of
>>>>> commercial support, with commercial firms from the USA, Canada,
>>>>> Europe,
>>>>> South America, Australia, etc.  What was the perceived benefit of
>>>>> keeping the process secret and exclusive?  Did someone threaten
>>>>> to pick
>>>>> up their marbles and go home?  You can often be surprised at how
>>>>> many
>>>>> folks are willing to contribute their own marbles when something
>>>>> like
>>>>> that happens - but you never know until you ask.
>>>>> The MapServer community really needs a Foundation to support it
>>>>> and to
>>>>> keep the product healthy and growing.  There are many examples
>>>>> of the
>>>>> creation of such consortia to draw from, both inside of and
>>>>> outside of
>>>>> the Open Source community.  It doesn't appear those examples were
>>>>> considered.  We really need a MapServer Foundation - I'm not at
>>>>> all sure
>>>>> that we need this one.
> 
> 
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Paul Spencer                           pspencer at dmsolutions.ca   |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Applications & Software Development                              |
> |DM Solutions Group Inc                 http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578
Page: 979.228.0173
Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843