MapServer Foundation - Open Letter

[Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]]

I would stay with MapServer Foundation.  But just don't call anything
MapServer other than MapServer.

..Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: UMN MapServer Users List 
> [mailto:MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Fawcett, David
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 November, 2005 11:12
> To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter
> 
> 
> 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
>