[OSGeo-Standards] Does OSGeo really "understand" OGC?

[Carl Reed]

Howard -

I am not sure that your statement: "The most important one is OSGeo SWG
members do not have voting rights."is correct. I checked the latest MoU.
There is no mention of a voting rights restriction. My understanding is
that any OGC member representative in good standing regardless of
membership level can vote in SWG activities. The caveat is that the member
representative abides by the TC Policies and Procedures related to SWG
voting. For example, the representative needs to be a member of the SWG for
30 days before requesting becoming a voting member of the SWG. See clauses
7.7.2 and later in the TC PnP:
https://docs.ogc.org/pol/05-020r24/05-020r24.html#66

But I will let OGC Staff clarify :-)

Cheers

Carl

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:54 AM Howard Butler via Standards <
standards at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2025, at 4:15 AM, Joana Simoes via Standards <
> standards at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we could introduce a session to discuss this at the next member
> meeting? What do you think?
>
> Joana,
>
> The model of how OSGeo members participate in OGC is broken in a few
> significant ways. The most important one is OSGeo SWG members do not have
> voting rights, and the next one is OSGeo does not have a TC vote.
>
> What this means from a practical standpoint is OSGeo-sponsored
> participants in SWGs can be ignored when there is disagreement. OGC voting
> is the same as the principle of nuclear deterrence. The threat that one
> *could* vote against you is incentive to work together to find common
> ground. When there's no threat from a non-voting participant, there's
> little incentive to actually work together when there is significant
> disagreement. While there are hardly any -1's in typical OSGeo project
> steering committee votes, the threat of a veto keeps everyone participating
> in good faith. OGC participation of OSGeo-sponsored SWG members does not
> have this dynamic.
>
> OSGeo itself not having a TC vote means OSGeo-sponsored participants have
> no higher authority to appeal to either. In the end, OSGeo-sponsored
> participants can exist to provide momentum, ideas, and work for the
> committees, but if there is any kind of impasse, deference is always made
> in the direction of the voting-member commercial or government voices, not
> open source contributors. It is not just OSGeo's OGC participation that has
> this dynamic either – small commercial entities are effectively priced out
> of voting too.
>
> You could retort that voting does not matter and OGC is kumbaya, except
> for the fact that in recent years OGC has been taking technologies the open
> source community has pioneered and pushing them through its standardization
> processes. Many recent OGC initiatives have been to take our community's
> work after-the-fact – COG, PROJJSON, GeoJSON, GeoParquet (not quite yet) –
> and "standardize" them in ways the break our practical software
> compatibility, confuse the branding and marketplace we have built without
> OGC meddling to "improve" them, and functionally wrest control of their
> futures away from our communities that made them in the first place. With
> no pathway to voting, OSGeo-sponsored participants have little opportunity
> to control the direction of the things they have made once they go inside
> of OGC.
>
> I think the open source community should be much more assertive in how it
> participates with OGC to protect its investments and implementation
> communities from be assumed/subsumed by this process. The first thing is
> specifications should be licensed in such a way that does not allow
> modifications (cc by-nd, etc), and that licensing should only be changed to
> allow specific standardization activities with the permission of all
> contributors. Second, OSGeo should support international trademark
> registration activities to protect the naming rights of these
> specifications (just like GeoPDF™️ :) ) to control how they are derived and
> marketed in the standardization bodies. Finally, OSGeo should financially
> support participation of its members to do standardization work in support
> of its communities – our community should be able to participate on equal
> par in person.
>
> Howard
>
> PS, sorry for the long essay, but it is a frustrating topic with a
> repeating pattern.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>


-- 
Carl Reed, PhD
Carl Reed and Associates

Mobile: 970-402-0284

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson

“It’s not hard to find two APIs that do exactly the same thing but have
nothing in common except the application/json media type." Richardson, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20250116/b24d5886/attachment.htm>