[Web Comm] RE: [OSGeo-Board] Service Provider Directory

[Arnulf Christl]

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>> I saw this idea as being a simple opt-in list of businesses that 
>> provide support/development services for OSGeo projects.  Nothing more 
>> or less.  People want to know that there are consultants that can, for 
>> example, help them implement mapbuilder.  To get on the list, the 
>> company must check off boxes to identify which osgeo projects they 
>> provide support for.  We'll leave it to them to know enough about 
>> whether they really support them or not.  I would avoid having any 
>> free-form text entry at all, so that there is no way to 'compete' 
>> between entries.
>>
>> The complexities of this idea are all related to making judgement 
>> calls about businesses who sign up.  Let's avoid that altogether by 
>> being totally open.  We could annually review the list, with the 
>> option to follow-up directly with each business if there were 
>> questions/confusion.  We can react to complaints, of course, but I see 
>> it as a very hands-off public services directory.
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Whew, I see I opened a can of worms!

Hi Frank,
good for you & thanks. 

> In my not-so-humble opinion, we should not be applying a "open source 
> enough"
> test to entries.  We will presumably only list technologies for them to
> select from that have at least some tangential applicability to our space.
> If any organizations wants to identify as having expertise then they can be
> listed.  This is why I'm not keen on a "supports osgeo's mission and goals"
> proviso.
> 
> For some specific cases raised, I think one of the technologies listed 
> would
> be "MapGuide" and Autodesk or MGE solution providers could list themselves.
> The skill set is transferrable between the open source and enterprise
> versions.

Fully agreed. 

> For that matter, folks want to know which service providers have Oracle
> and ArcGIS/SDE integration experience, so I would expect to list those as
> technologies even though they are clearly not open source.

Fully disagree - if I got this right at all what I cannot really believe. I have no inclination whatsoever to include non Open Source technologies at any point in a list of service provider competences. We are trying to raise awareness on Free and Open Source Software development and - IMNSHO (I like that one... :-) also business models. From that perspective it would not make any sense at all to include proprietary software. 

Obviously there will be enough service providers of a Tydac format who publicly state that they do not care at all about whether or not a client wants Open Source or a proprietary solution. ((Don't get me wrong, I respect this. But that does not mean that I have to support it!)) To me its fine if service providers add themselves to this list to offer their services with respect to OSGeo software. But I would not understand why it should be possible for them to link to proprietary software on the OSGeo site. There is no reason to do that. 

> On the whole diluting sponsorship issue, I see the point.  In previous
> discussions there has been a great concern about unfairness if we treat
> sponsors differently than other providers.  Clearly there will be other
> things we do on the web site to highlight sponsors.
> 
> I personally wouldn't mind doing some things for sponsors on the service
> provider page as long as it is really really clear that it relates to
> their sponsorship  and it doesn't exclude others.  This might include
> listing them always at the top of the list (with special sponsor
> level headings) and possibly allowing them a logo and a bit of
> textual description.
> 
> But unless it is felt to be really important to the sponsorship program,
> I'd rather just keep it simple, and avoid this additional complexity with
> it's attendant risk of backlash.
> 
> In short, I agree with Tyler!
> 
> Best regards,

I would like to add a locative component. This will complexenize things but so what, are we spatial. From a globalization perspective I believe in thinking globally and acting locally. From all that I know 95% of revenue with Open Source is generated by small and medium enterprises in their physical vicinity. Thats where our Geo stuff comes into play, we can actually show service providers in a spatial context.

There are not so many global players - think Refractions, DM-Solutions or Autodesk - and they all have very different edges to the "global player" concept. All the rest, and that is the large majority - are many many thousand small caps who would love to appear in a localized directory to offer their services. On a small scale we (CCGIS) are doing this "manually" by introducing potential customers to potential service providers that we know are physically nearer to each other than us (not because we are nuts but because we don't want to live in trains and airplanes all life). This makes all the more sense from our European fractured language perspective. Have people talk the same language makes working a lot easier. In this respect we (CCGIS) do not compete with for example camp2camp in a French speaking area because they can talk French we don't. If we get around doing something in the same spot (location) at all then we cooperate. A listing with a localizing component would
 enhance this process a lot. 

Best regards,