MapServer Foundation - Open Letter

[Bob Basques]

Hmmm, how about . . .

"Open Spatial Foundation"

Kinda has a ring to it, short acronym OSF, seems easy to remember, in 
acronym form anyway.

Still thinking about it though . . .

bobb

Bart van den Eijnden wrote:

>Why limit it to webmapping only? This would exclude things like PostGIS, =
>uDIG etc. from joining.
>
>My suggestion would be Open Source GIS Foundation or Open Source GIS =
>Software Foundation.
>
>Best regards,
>Bart
>
>Bart van den Eijnden
>Syncera IT Solutions
>Postbus 270
>2600 AG  DELFT
>
>tel.nr.: 015-7512436
>email: BEN at Syncera-ITSolutions.nl
>  
>
>>>>"Fawcett, David" <David.Fawcett at STATE.MN.US> 11/30/05 5:12 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Gary,=20
>
>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?=20
>
>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=20
>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=20
>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=20
>gotten a response, but he's been busy and I feel its appropriate that I=20
>not wait any longer to put in my two cents.)
>
>My second reaction was empowerment.  You see, I have been discussing=20
>working with another firm to help them upgrade their online mapping=20
>systems.  I've pushed open-source GIS solutions (Mapserver and PostGIS
>in=20
>particular), and the response I've gotten is that it's "still in its=20
>infancy and has no major players like IBM/Novell in the Linux space." =20
>Autodesk (for all of their faults) has given me a winning hand in this=20
>game, and I've already setup the meeting to discuss it with my=20
>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. =20
>
>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. =20
>
>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=20
>_towards_ the Mapserver Enterprise naming.  It is one of very few
>mistakes=20
>I've seen from them, and I suppose they were due: however, it is a=20
>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=20
>out there has been through naming conflicts: Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox,=20
>FlexFAX/HylaFAX, etc.  They are painful, but not deadly.
>
>Autodesk, welcome aboard: I'm sorry you're initiation has been painful,=20
>but if you stick with it, this really will be a rewarding experience for
>
>you.
>
>Bill
>
>  
>