MapServer Foundation - Open Letter

[Fawcett, David]

Gary, 

Thank you for being open to not using the name MapServer to describe
MapGuide.  For the foundation, may I suggest:

Open Source Web Mapping Foundation?
Web Mapping Foundation?


Peoples Front for the Liberation of Web Mapping Products?

David.

-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:01 AM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter


OK. So here's a sincere call for input.

Here's the rub. Regardless of who made the mistake of suggesting it, I
liked the name and agreed that we would go with it, so I'll take
responsibility for MSE.

On the back of that, we - what can now be seen as the TSC-x cabal + 1
ADSK person - started drifting from foundation names that had more
umbrella-like characteristics like osgis.org, mapcommunity, maptools,
etc. and towards something that focuses on what we were putting out
together. Based on the fact that both products were named MapServer in
the root, we went with "MapServer Foundation".

Now let's assume we change the name back to MapGuide. Why would I now
want to cripple any hope of adoption by anybody by putting it in a
foundation (that I helped name) that highlights one map serving product
over another? 

So far the community is showing more common sense than we were on this,
so I'm interested to hear your opinions.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bill Binko
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 7:44 AM
To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter

Hello, everyone

I'm very sorry to be in this situation twice in one month (HylaFAX is 
another project I'm involved in, and recently had a possible-fork/naming

clash), but I thouht I would add one more perspective and perhaps a 
request.

When I first read the announcement about the foundation, I had two
distinct reactions.  First, I sent a note to Frank, who I have found
best represent the "soul" of the OpenGIS community.  I asked him why I
so many people I respected (including danmo, and hobu, among others)
were going along with what looked like a land-grab by a company that has
historically been less-than-friendly to open source and open standards.
(I haven't 
gotten a response, but he's been busy and I feel its appropriate that I 
not wait any longer to put in my two cents.)

My second reaction was empowerment.  You see, I have been discussing 
working with another firm to help them upgrade their online mapping 
systems.  I've pushed open-source GIS solutions (Mapserver and PostGIS
in 
particular), and the response I've gotten is that it's "still in its 
infancy and has no major players like IBM/Novell in the Linux space."  
Autodesk (for all of their faults) has given me a winning hand in this 
game, and I've already setup the meeting to discuss it with my 
counterpart.

These reactions seem to map directly to something said earlier:
Autodesk's involvment and the foundation are major benefits to this
community, and the poor choice of naming and lack of community
involvement prior to the launch are major mistakes.  

The lack of involvement cannot be fixed: it can only be acknowledged and
learned from.  I think Gary has acknowledged it from Autodesk's
standpoint, and I'm sure others will admit that Ed's approach ("the
third
option") would have been better.  

As an aside, I think this community is to be congratulated that nobody
has yet suggested "OpenMapserver" or setting up a fork on sf.net or any
of the other threats that I've seen in other contexts: it shows that it
is not the code or even the Man-Years that are of value to this group,
but the community that builds, supports, and uses this great tool suite.

I was surprised to read that Frank and Dan were both involved in moving 
_towards_ the Mapserver Enterprise naming.  It is one of very few
mistakes 
I've seen from them, and I suppose they were due: however, it is a 
mistake, nonetheless.  The good news is that it is a fixable mistake.

Frank, you have one of the most authoritative voices in this community,
and I'm sure Autodesk has considered your position in choosing this
naming path.  I think they would do so again, if you were to suggest
that the damage being done to the community by this error will outwiegh
any branding benefits they may gain.

It might be useful to remember that many of the best Open Source
software 
out there has been through naming conflicts: Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox, 
FlexFAX/HylaFAX, etc.  They are painful, but not deadly.

Autodesk, welcome aboard: I'm sorry you're initiation has been painful, 
but if you stick with it, this really will be a rewarding experience for

you.

Bill