Daniel, I would see this similarly, thanks J
Send from cellphone -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org On Sep 15, 2014 6:31 PM, "Daniel Morissette" <dmorisse...@mapgears.com> wrote: > Hi Maxi, All, > > You raise an excellent question and the answer varies depending on what > one is looking for. This whole discussion should help understand why both > organizations are complementary and not really competing that much. > > Jody and Rob already pointed out some similarities and differences related > to software projects and incubation so I won't touch on that. > > In my case, the motivation to get involved with LocationTech is for the > business aspect: I am a citizen of both the software developer community > (with MapServer, GDAL, etc.) and the business community (with Mapgears), > and while OSGeo does a great job for the software community, it is lacking > on the business side and I see hope in what LocationTech is trying to build. > > Why two orgs you'll ask? Can't OSGeo do it all? Can't LocationTech do it > all? I don't think a single organization can address all the needs of all > people. So diversity is good and allows different orgs to have different > and complementary priorities and strengths, and if those orgs work together > on the parts that overlap that will be in the best interest of the overall > community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who care about free/open > source geo software. > > So what's different in LocationTech? My opinion is that the main > differences between the two orgs start with their different structure and > history: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in > Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses. This leads to setting the priorities > differently and using different approaches to reach the same goal of > supporting open source software. Essentially the result is that today OSGeo > is more community oriented, and LocationTech is more business-oriented. > > Before someone says that I'm over-generalizing, I know that OSGeo has many > businesses revolving around it (including Mapgears, and we're not going > anyway), and LocationTech has project committers reps on its board, so both > are not purely black or white. But the core of each org is very different, > we need to recognize that and work on those strenghts. > > BTW, on a side note, 8 years ago I would have said that OSGeo is > software-project-driven, but I seem to have noticed a shift over the years > towards education and community. Not that this is a problem or that > projects are less important than they used to be, but just that the > membership has grown with more community and academic people than software > people, and that resulted in a small shift of priorities. Maybe it's also > that software projects have a bit less needs now that their basic needs are > served, and the next challenges are on the education and community side? > I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all (quite the contrary), just > pointing out that this shift is happening and as part of the evolution of > our organizations (OSGeo, LocationTech and others) other shifts are to be > expected over the coming years. > > Back to OSGeo vs LocationTech: both approaches have their pros and cons, > and no one is better than the other, they are complementary and > LocationTech aims to fill a void for businesses that OSGeo could not > address well due to its nature. Having both is a good thing, and if they > can find a way to cooperate efficiently then we all win. > > Having two orgs doesn't mean that people or projects need to choose a > camp. I believe projects could incubate under both orgs to reach their > different communities as others pointed out already, but that should not be > a requirement, and it is also perfectly fine for individuals to play on > both fronts as I, Jody and a few others do. For instance in my case as I > wrote already, I am in OSGeo for the software developer network that it > provides me, and in LocationTech for the business network that it is aiming > to build. > > For those who still don't see the complementarity between OSGeo and > LocationTech after reading the multiple replies in this thread, think of > the coo-petition between MapServer, GeoServer and Mapnik, or between > OpenLayers and Leaflet. That kind of diversity is good and we treat it as > friendly coo-petition (or most of us do anyway), and it leads to faster > evolution, and many users use all of the above on different days / > different projects depending on the specific needs/features they are > looking for. Open Source doesn't force you to choose a camp, you just use > the best tool for the task you are working on at a given time. Why could it > not be the same with OSGeo vs LocationTech as coo-peting orgs addressing > different needs? > > Daniel > > P.S. FWIW, I am not going away from OSGeo, I plan to continue to be > involved in both OSGeo and LocationTech since they both serve different > needs for me. > > > > On 14-09-14 6:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote: > >> As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software >> affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. >> >> Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do >> differently with respect to osgeo? does it somehow overlap with >> incubation or not? What are the distinctive features? >> >> Personally I wonder why some of the most eminent person of osgeo (like >> you) decided to work into location teach? Don't misunderstood me, I'm >> not judging nor criticizing, I'd just like to understand opportunities >> or aspect or services not found in osgeo and that experts and leaders >> found there. >> >> Sorry in advance for my eventual ignorance, but I think this would help >> people better understand the discussion and the future of osgeo. >> >> Maxi >> >> Il 14-set-2014 17:05 "Daniel Morissette" <dmorisse...@mapgears.com >> <mailto:dmorisse...@mapgears.com>> ha scritto: >> >> FWIW I'm happy to hear that there was such a face to face >> discussion. I believe that open communication on the issues will be >> the best way to address the fears and find ways to move forward in >> the best interest of the overall worldwide community of people, >> businesses, institutions, etc who have a common interest in seeing >> free and open source geospatial software strive. >> >> Keep in mind that we all come to this model of software development >> for different reasons (business, academic, philosophical, hobby, >> etc.), but in the end we're all working towards a similar objective, >> so there is no fear to be had, just different means of reaching a >> common objective, and since the result of everybody's actions is >> better free/open source software, everybody will benefit in the end. >> >> Not sure if I was able to relay my thoughts properly... maybe I need >> a bit more sleep. >> >> Cheers all >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On 14-09-14 10:25 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: >> >> Guys, >> >> as long as I understand it: "some members of the community" are >> scared >> of LocationTech "taking over" whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo >> projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken >> on >> either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal >> dislikes. >> >> Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with >> Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally >> believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to "crush" >> OSGeo >> or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech >> would >> like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, >> regarding (again) "some remarks" of "some members of the >> community" >> (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not >> necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to >> stress. >> I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both >> sides, >> still calm and productive. >> >> "To contribute" of course means "to work" and LocationTech is >> anything >> but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that >> FOSS4G-NA >> next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo >> willl >> be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. >> >> This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation >> between LocationTech and OSGeo. >> >> Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that >> good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other >> things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and >> weaken our weaknesses should have "non-zero-sum" effect. >> >> We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping >> us >> LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global >> level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we >> shall >> try to find solution for the next time. >> >> In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible >> and >> everybody can go it's way than. >> >> I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted >> anything, what was said. >> >> Thank you >> >> >> Jachym >> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Morissette >> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201 >> http://www.mapgears.com/ >> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 >> _________________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss >> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > -- > Daniel Morissette > T: +1 418-696-5056 #201 > http://www.mapgears.com/ > Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss