Jeff, Everyone
I'd like to try using a metaphor in case it might help.
Imagine FOSS4G as an open source library. Rather than create a new
library that does pretty much the same thing, many feel that a single
vibrant library in this case is the best thing for the ecosystem.
Hopefully this is seen as pretty reasonable so far.
There are different models for open source. Some models are open to all
& try hard to keep a level playing field. In this models people can
comfortably contribute knowing that their efforts benefit everyone. In
this model, it's open to everyone including parties that might be
competitors elsewhere.
Other models are pretty unfair, such as when a company requires
copyright assignment to the company, only allows employees to influence
the roadmap, and uses a strong license like the GPL. Under such
circumstances, that company has a strong advantage over anyone else. For
one example, they are the only ones that can offer a non-GPL license
version of the software.
For the past 10 years, different groups were welcome to contribute to
our FOSS4G library. After their contributions were sufficient, they got
to participate in influencing the roadmap for the library. Some groups
only had the capacity to contribute a little, some a lot.
I believe this is what we're talking about. LocationTech would like to
contribute in a fair way and participate in the roadmap too, just as
others have done. Everyone wins if this can happen. I'm very happy to
talk about governance and how we can do things fairly, openly,
transparently, and make sure everyone is comfortable.
If what you're telling me is that FOSS4G is not open source, but instead
proprietary then I've made a mistake and it wasn't the FOSS4G I thought
it was all these years.
Does this make sense?
Andrew
On 16/09/14 08:38, Jeff McKenna wrote:
Hello everyone,
To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact
I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem.
The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as
OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our
annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it
is our flagship event.
It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having
their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our
event, FOSS4G.
So maybe to remove this stress, or "fear", I would prefer to pull back
on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and
then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's
events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship
slowly, as we do with every other foundation.
I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In
fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that
now we must deal with this all together.
I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel
that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am
here to represent you.
The last few days have been very hard on me.
-jeff
OSGeo President
On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
Dear All,
Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more
formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael
Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted
to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was
very impressed.
I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people
saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two
organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very
fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best
not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the
past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case
basis.
During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects
participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to
organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo
projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo
projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on
the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are
seen as a significant positive force.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth
has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what
Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems
today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since.
It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the
strengths of OSGeo & LocationTech complement each other despite some
overlap. LocationTech & the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help
solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many
years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really
pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise.
Andrew
On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
On 9/16/2014 10:48 AM, Richard Greenwood wrote:
I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but
why do
we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what
LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or
awareness,
in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech?
Very pertinent questions form Rich. I hope we will receive some lucid
answers.
Best
Venka
Rich
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna
<jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com
wrote:
Arnulf,
I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to
exist.
The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change
OSGeo,
if we feel some needs are not being met well.
I used too strong of words again, I am sorry.
-jeff
On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeff,
I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given
that I
understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences
between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not
get us anywhere. And its not "bad" or "goo" either way, we just
operate differently.
The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a
business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate
member,
pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get
support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does
none
of those things.
As an individual (with or without business) you can become the
committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no
preconditions,
no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy.
Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have
accumulated
enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this
way
in LocationTech.
Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right?
Cheers.
Arnulf
Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna:
On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in
Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses
Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members
are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private
businesses all around the world. I have visited their
organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the
years.
However I cannot change how you feel.
This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly,
which I feel are made to divide our community.
Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of
all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus
on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am
happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :)
-jeff
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
