[OSGeo-Board] Eleventh Board Meeting Agenda

[Dave McIlhagga]

Actually one more thing.

I think Gary's point about focussing on promotion of projects as our 
main priority is bang on. By maintaining that focus, instead of how 
people/organizations actually use the projects and get involved with 
them, we avoid a lot of the political/philosophical stuff that can take 
away from our main objectives.

Dave


Arnulf Christl wrote:
> Dave McIlhagga wrote:
> 
>> Hi Arnulf,
>>
>> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it will be possible to have a chat - even if informal - on IRC 
>>> because we have pressing issues regarding booth operation at the 
>>> Intergeo exhibition. The plan is out and there is an Open Source Park 
>>> reserved and we need to fix who is going to do what and what the role 
>>> of the OSGeo could take on.
>>> Would the  OSGeo Foundation would consent at being the 
>>> judge/committee regarding which company is committed (enough) to 
>>> doing Open Source ('trustworthy?') so that it can appear in the Open 
>>> Source Park.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm - this sounds like very dangerous territory to me for OSGeo to be 
>> wandering into ... do we really want to be determining who is more 
>> open source than another - or more deserving? If we look at what's 
>> going on at Where 2.0 -- there is no issue, since the companies have 
>> representatives attending and participating - but all wearing an OSGeo 
>> Hat (or is that a shirt?)
> 
> 
> Well, from our perspective this is exactly one of the jobs that the 
> OSGeo will have to do (think about the certification discussion we had 
> some time ago, this goes in the same direction). If the OSGeo Foundation 
> does not know how to separate serious OS supporters from frauds who can?
> 
>> It's very conceivable that some companies may use zero open source 
>> themselves, but strategically want to be promoting adoption of open 
>> source. I don't think we would want to discourage this -- any and all 
>> support we can get for open source should and needs to be welcomed.
> 
> 
> Thats another issue that I am not so sure about. I do not think that we 
> need any and all support regardless of the price we have to pay. Turn it 
> the other way round and make OSGeo more interesting by making people 
> have to crane their neck to get accepted. Look at the example of how 
> Autodesk grew into the OSGeo community. The first try went bad. Then it 
> took a long time and getting to know each other until we really could 
> trust but now we have a really good common foundation (basement) of the 
> Foundation. And this could only happen because the community exerted 
> some pressure and did not submitted to the 800 pound gorilla right away. 
> We can actually help people understand our concepts - so maybe only my 
> wording was not well selected.
> 
> We had this kind of discussion in different flavors before. I think it 
> suits us well ('us' being the Foundation) to pick those out who we trust 
> and who we know are trustworthy. Lets build up some pride - I think the 
> danger of becoming overly complacent is still very low (we'll have to 
> watch out, no questions asked).
> 
> Maybe by looking at the OSGeo Foundation as if it were an Open Source 
> project this becomes more transparent. Any PSC will not just open the 
> door (code repository) to anybody but will first want to get to know who 
> she is and how she could contribute in a meaningful way. Then it will be 
> a consensus decision as it always should be in an Open Source 
> environment. One of the core interests of the foundation is to focus on 
> quality software and communities and not become the cemetery of hundreds 
> of zombie projects. In my opinion the same should apply to the resources 
> that support us - which will also be companies operating booths in the 
> direct vicinity or even under the roof of the OSGeo Foundation. And in 
> some cases we should prefer quality over quantity.
> 
> I definitely want to be able to throw in a veto whenever a company that 
> has a record of not been trustworthy regarding Open Source tries to 
> sneak their way in. Being an avowing paranoid I know that I might be 
> overly sensitive to this kind of issue but we have a fairly simple 
> regulatory to sort my kind out. If I place a veto and can't back it up 
> within 3 days it turns void. If I am the only one objecting the rest can 
> vote me out. Its basically simple Open Source methodology.
> 
>> Don't know if this helps as I"m not sure of the context of the 
>> question -- but it seems like OSGeo should remain as neutral as 
>> possible when it comes to 'endorsing' open sourceness of companies 
>> around it.
>>
>> Dave
> 
> 
> Please help me out with 'endorsing' (especially what you mean with the 
> single quotes).
> 
> Oops, wikipedia don't really help me, look at this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_endorsement
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement_terrorism
> 
> Which one do you mean?
> :-)
> 
> Neutrality is definitely not what I understand the job of the OSGeo to 
> be. We are not going to be neutral regarding misusing Open Source 
> wording, concepts and ideas - that would not make any sense. Maybe I got 
> you wrong, but we should further discuss this so that I am not 
> completely on the wrong track.
> 
> Best regards,
> Arnulf.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org
> 
>