Nice summary IMHO, thanks Jachym 2014-09-17 19:41 GMT+02:00 Darrell Fuhriman <darr...@garnix.org>: > FWIW, what I want to ensure happens is that the issue of partnering with > LocationTech does not get conflated with fixing how FOSS4G is managed. > > What is clear is that things cannot continue to go on as they have, > especially if OSGeo is serious about expanding FOSS4G, both in size and > scope. I believe the organization it at a cross-roads with FOSS4G, and it's > a choice between expanding the conference with the help of a professional, > or letting the conference stagnate (and hence OSGeo stagnate). It is simply > as large as it can get under the current structure. And given that there's > already been one flame out, arguably already too big. > > Unless things change, and change soon, there will be another failure like > Bejing. It's that simple. It's past time to grow up and start acting like > the conference(s) are OSGeo's lifeline -- which they are. > > Though one proposed path to adulthood for FOSS4G involves LocationTech, it's > not the only possible solution. > > I see three ways to do this, each with advantages and disadvantages: > > 1) Contract an outside PCO on an ongoing basis > 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer > 3) Partner with LocationTech > > I'll address each of these in turn : > > 1) Contract an outside PCO > > This is the easiest thing to do. In fact, and this is very important to > understand: OSGeo already hires an outside PCO, they just do so from scratch > on an annual basis, in the most inefficient way possible. > > If you want the really easy way out, hire the one we used this year. They > did a good job at a reasonable price. They were already discussing with the > Korea team about continuing the contract with them. > > If you want to be more formal, solicit bids and choose one that way. > > However you choose, choose with the assumption that the contract is an > ongoing one as long as both parties are satisfied. > > Disadvantages: > > The only real objection I've heard to doing it this way is that it's good to > have someone with local knowledge. My response is that this is simply false. > In fact, we chose our PCO in part based on that assumption. We were wrong. > Heck, one of them even commented to me that it was a nice change to do a > conference in Portland, since they hadn't done so in years. > Some lack of flexibility: if OSGeo wants to expand the role (see below), > then it requires a renegotiation of the contract, and a general PCO may not > be the right choice for that role. > > Advantages: > > Institutional knowledge. The conference knowledge carries on in the > organization, and is hopefully not entirely imbued in one person. > Simplicity. We're already doing it -- just poorly. > > > 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer > > This is more risk, but also offers more potential. > > Advantages: > > Having a staff person allow OSGeo to be more flexible in organizing > conferences. Is there a budding regional conference that needs some > assistance? We can help with that. Would OSGeo like to foster growth in > regions without a local FOSS4G event? OSGeo can do that. > > > Disadvantages: > > You would only have one staff person, which means more risk of losing > institutional knowledge if that person leaves. > Potential for no being seen as less of/no longer a volunteer led > organization. (Personally, I think this fear is overwrought, but that > doesn't make it any less real. OSGeo already outsources jobs which its > membership isn't qualified to do, for instance lawyers, accountants, and yes > even PCOs.) > Hiring is hard, and takes time, especially to find a good autonomous person > to take on this role > > > 3) Partner with LocationTech > > Obviously in the current context, this is a loaded proposition. I appreciate > that there's fear of take over or of "losing" FOSS4G and its income. I > believe that can be allayed with a properly written contract. There seems to > be a lot of speculation about what a partnership means, and not a lot of > facts. > > I see this partnership as starting with LocationTech serving as a PCO and > nothing more. If both parties later want to expand that relationship, that > can be done, but start with the PCO and treat it as no different than the > proposal in (1). > > Advantages: > > LocationTech works in the same space, has contacts, and the Eclipse > Foundation already runs conferences > Potential for future, deepened partnerships > > Disadvantages: > > LocationTech works in the same space, has contacts, and the Eclipse > Foundation already runs conferences, so there's a potential for conflicts of > interest > If it doesn't work out for whatever reason, future partnership opportunities > might be lost > > > === > > Those are a few of my many thoughts on the topic, and on my thoughts for the > future of OSGeo, but I think it's important to stay focused on bite-sized > chunks for right now. If possible, let's try to keep this (sub-)thread > focused on the issue of FOSS4G and not on the larger questions about OSGeo. > > Darrell > > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 07:38, Jeff McKenna <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss