MapServer Foundation thoughts and reactions

[David Bitner]

Has there been any discussion about governance for the new Masperver
Foundation?  My impression (and hope) is that the signatories have at
least discussed this somewhat.  I would like to see something come
about that made sure to include a wide breadth of the Mapserver
Community.  The signatories were primarily made up of core developers.
 I would like to see the Foundation involve the following.

1. Core application developers
2. Core organized client application developers (ie ka-map, mapbuilder, etc)
3. Service Providers (individual consultants, DM, Refractions, Autodesk etc)
4. Users (individuals, user groups, universities, government agencies)

There are probably more, or perhaps the above could be further
sub-divided, but it would nice if the members of the Foundation board
would have an area that they were responsibility for being the lead
cheerleader and lobbiest for (ie a Users Group rep could advocate for
pulling together resources that could be used to facilitate users
group meetings while a service provider rep could advocate for a
section on the web site dedicated to finding commercial support).

Another question, will the board be subject to elections from the
community as a whole?

I think a lot of ground can be gained for support of these projects by
appropriately representing the different interests that there are in
this project.

On 11/29/05, Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager at tamu.edu> wrote:
> 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
>