+ 1 Maria
---------------------------------------------------- See you at FOSS4G Seoul: http://2015.foss4g.org/ ---------------------------------------------------- Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor Politecnico di Milano ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications"; OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY) Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321 e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it > Il giorno 26/set/2015, alle ore 20:35, Siki Zoltan <s...@agt.bme.hu> ha > scritto: > > > +1 > > Zoltan > >> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Massimiliano Cannata wrote: >> >> Darrel YOU ARE WRONG.... BUT >> osgeo is a great and successful community and this alone desrve the OSGeo >> existence. >> >> Before we only had project oriented communities (mapserver, grass, etc). >> But now we have a place in the network to get togheter with all projects >> and users. Aren't we using stack of softwere instead of a single solution >> very often? >> FOSS4G is where we exchange ideas, create innovation and get fun also. >> >> Some excellent work is done also in some working groups... incubation and >> geo4all for example... >> >> So you are WRONG! >> >> BUT.... i have to agree that things could even be better :-) >> In my opinion (and this is part of my manifesto even if i still have one >> more year to serve the board): >> - we need to redefine objectives of the association cause things have >> changed (reault framework...) >> - we need to better promote our valuable software and community (marketing. >> ..) >> - we need to review and redefine rules so that they are transparent and >> clear (communication... ) >> - we need to lower the rates of our international meetings to be more >> inclusive >> - we need a plan for investment (investment plan..) >> >> So i call for a face2face meeting of 2 days of all the board members in the >> next months to discuss all these points. >> Apparently the last board was not able to set a date, but i'm keen that the >> new board will be able to do it. It will aslo he agood starting point to >> define our working plan... >> >> The i call all of you charter member to help and do things... continuing in >> shaking the community but also propose and act to make the world a better >> place. Then if you think the world would be better without osgeo... well... >> be part of the community is not mandatory :-) >> >> Best >> Proudly member of osgeo >> Maxi >> Il 25/Set/2015 21:57, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darr...@garnix.org> ha scritto: >> >>> The recent discussion on the board list >>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-September/013172.html> that >>> came out of the question of the 2014 videos has got me thinking about a few >>> things again, and I want to try to get them out there. >>> >>> Grab a mug of your favorite liquid and hunker down, because I put some >>> time and effort into this, and your own well considered reply is >>> appreciated. >>> >>> Keep in mind that all of these comments are coming from my personal >>> perspective, which, like everyone˙˙s, is an incomplete picture of the whole. >>> Much of what I˙˙m going to say has been rolling around my head for a while, >>> so I˙˙m just going to put it out there. >>> I will start with a provocative thesis: >>> >>> OSGeo lacks visionary unified leadership and without it will become >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> Of course, making such a claim requires support. So let me break down the >>> statement. >>> >>> ˙˙Visionary leadership˙˙ is really two things, ˙˙vision˙˙ and >>> ˙˙leadership.˙˙ I >>> will address each in turn. >>> OSGeo lacks vision >>> I looked at the list of ˙˙Goals˙˙ for OSGeo >>> <http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html>. I wonder: when was >>> the last time these goals were evaluated for both success and relevancy? >>> >>> Here is my own opinion of success of some of these goals. (In the >>> interest of brevity, I haven˙˙t tried to tackle everything. That˙˙s left as >>> an exercise to the reader.) >>> >>> Example 1 >>> To provide resources for foundation projects - eg. infrastructure, >>> funding, legal. >>> >>> Allow me to break each of those examples down. >>> Infrastructure >>> It˙˙s true that OSGeo provides some infrastructure, such as Trac instance, >>> Mailman, SVN repos. If the budget is to be believed, we pay some $3,500/yr >>> to OSUOSL for said infrastructure. I wonder if such a service is necessary, >>> however. Issue tracking and source control are much better provided by >>> Github, which is free for organization such as ours. >>> I say this because a) that˙˙s money that could be better spent elsewhere >>> and b) supporting these services burns precious volunteer time (more on >>> that below). >>> >>> There are clear cost savings available, which are not taken advantage of. >>> For example, OSGeo could be hosting FOSS4G infrastructure: conference >>> websites and registration, a central location for conference videos >>> (regardless of platform/provider). This neglect is especially galling given >>> that FOSS4G is OSGeo˙˙s sole source of income. >>> Funding >>> >>> OSGeo does not fund projects. It has provided some funds to pay for Code >>> Sprints ˙˙ $15k in 2014 according to the budget >>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2014>. >>> Legal >>> >>> I see nothing that has been done on this front recently. Please feel free >>> to correct me. >>> Conclusion >>> >>> OSGeo, where it actually does what it claims, has not adapted in ways that >>> could save money. >>> >>> My grade: D >>> Example 2 >>> To promote freely available geodata - free software is useless without >>> data. >>> >>> The geodata working group is dead. As near as I can tell by perusing the >>> mailing list archives, and the wiki, there has been no meaningful activity >>> in the past two years (maybe more). >>> >>> My grade: F >>> Example 3 >>> To promote the use of open source software in the geospatial industry (not >>> just foundation software) - eg. PR, training, outreach. >>> >>> The Board of Directors >>> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Packaging_and_Marketing> >>> page says: >>> Packaging and Marketing >>> >>> OSGeo˙˙s marketing effort has primarily been focused around the packaging >>> and documentation efforts of OSGeo-Live, and to a lesser extend[sic], >>> osgeo4w. [˙˙] It has been entirely driven by volunteer labour, with 140 >>> OSGeo-Live volunteers, and printing costs have been covered by local events >>> or sponsors. In the last couple of years, OSGeo has covered local chapter >>> expenses required to purchase non-consumable items for conference booths >>> (such as a retractable banner). In moving forward, OSGeo hope to extend >>> marketing reach by providing co-contributions toward printing costs of >>> consumable items at conferences, such as toward OSGeo-Live DVDs. >>> Local Chapters >>> Much of OSGeo˙˙s marketing initiates are applied at the local level. In >>> many cases, this is best supported through as little as an email list and >>> wiki page. OSGeo also supports local chapters by offering to pay for an >>> Exhibition starter pack for local chapters. Local chapters are also usually >>> the coordinators of conferences and related events, as mentioned above. >>> >>> Exhibition starter packs almost never happen; OSGeo-Live explicitly gets >>> no support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at its own conference to >>> say nothing of any other conferences. >>> >>> Note: Local chapters certainly do do marketing and outreach, but these >>> efforts are essentially unsupported by the OSGeo Foundation. In fact, this >>> goal and the Board of Directors webpage seem to be explicitly >>> contradictory. >>> >>> My grade: F. >>> Commentary >>> I could go on with my own personal evaluations, but I˙˙m not sure that˙˙s >>> necessary. The only place I see that OSGeo has unquestionably succeeded in >>> the past few years is the final goal, ˙˙To award the Sol Katz award for >>> service to the OSGeo community˙˙. >>> >>> So, what˙˙s my point here? It˙˙s simple: there is no longer a coherent >>> vision for what OSGeo should be. I˙˙ll return to that below, but let me >>> continue with my other point. >>> >>> OSGeo lacks leadership >>> Again quoting the Board of Directors˙˙ page: >>> >>> The board˙˙s primary responsibility is to efficiently and effectively make >>> strategic decisions related to the running of OSGeo. >>> >>> I won˙˙t bore you with the details, but a perusal of the board meeting >>> minutes would indicate that strategy is rarely, if ever, a part of the >>> meetings. >>> >>> The emphasis on consensus-based decision making often leads to no >>> decisions being made. I can˙˙t count the number of discussions that have >>> come up on the board list only to devolve into a morass of nit-picking and >>> eventual lack of action when everyone tires of the discussion. What action >>> that is taken is often to ˙˙delegate˙˙ to a (possibly inactive) >>> sub-committee, then never follow up. >>> >>> Instead what we have is a great deal of inertia, little interest in >>> changing things, and no clear indication of what the Board˙˙s priorities >>> are. >>> >>> If priorities do exist, they˙˙re lost in a maze of confusing, incomplete >>> and often contradictory information on the wiki. (Wikis ˙˙ like abandonware >>> for documentation.) >>> On pending irrelevancy >>> I encourage you to ask some random people in the open source geospatial >>> community what OSGeo means to them. I would make a bet that the most common >>> answer is a blank stare. >>> >>> I would ask the board members to come up with three things, other than >>> FOSS4G, where the OSGeo membership has shown its importance to the >>> community as a whole in the last two years. Something where people say, >>> ˙˙Did you hear about [exciting thing] OSGeo is doing on X?˙˙ To be clear, I >>> don˙˙t mean just things that OSGeo has a finger in, but things that need >>> OSGeo. If OSGeo disappeared tomorrow, would any of these projects be >>> significantly affected? >>> >>> I don˙˙t think it can be done. The OSGeo Foundation is sliding into >>> irrelevancy ˙˙ and it may already be there. >>> >>> If anything should be seen as strategic for OSGeo, it˙˙s FOSS4G, the >>> foundation˙˙s primary (sole?) source of income. Even regarding its flagship >>> public event, the board is largely absent. Rather than provide adequate >>> resources and planning, they instead rely on burning out volunteers, then >>> make post-hoc demands on the way they should have done it, provide no >>> future support for organizers to heed those demands, rarely follow up, then >>> go on to repeat the same mistakes the following year. Honestly, it˙˙s >>> surprising that FOSS4G has failed only once. (I think this is a reflection >>> of the demand for the conference, not the blazing competence of OSGeo.) >>> >>> Michael Gerlek brought this up >>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-July/014521.html> on the >>> osgeo-discuss list in July, and probably has a more generous spin on it. He >>> essentially argues that it˙˙s time to declare mission accomplished and shut >>> down or rebooted. I agree with his points, and I˙˙m arguing that OSGeo can >>> have something to offer, but it will require a major re-think of its >>> mission. >>> >>> Fixing things >>> I hinted at this in my recent questions to the board candidates, but I >>> want to be explicit here: OSGeo needs to evolve or die. >>> >>> Here˙˙s how I would do it: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> The board needs to evaluate all of its goals, as defined on the About >>> page, to decide if they are still truly goals. Define any new goals. >>> 2. >>> >>> Ask the question: ˙˙What does it mean to succeed at this goal?˙˙ >>> >>> If the goal is vague, or ongoing, give a timeline: ˙˙What does success look >>> like for this goal one year from now?˙˙ >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask the >>> question, ˙˙How will we know if we˙˙ve succeeded?˙˙ >>> 2. >>> >>> Prioritize the goals. >>> 3. >>> >>> Allocate resources to the goals. >>> >>> Obviously this is a tricky one, but I think we can look at this a balance >>> between Importance and Effort. >>> >>> >>> Spend money to reduce to the effort required, more money if the goal is >>> more important ˙˙ this might be the hardest cultural shift. Volunteer time >>> is precious and easily discouraged. Make sure that you make it as efficient >>> as possible by spending money when you can. >>> >>> >>> For example, many of the infrastructure services OSGeo provides can be >>> easily outsourced to more featureful services that are more responsive and >>> rely less on volunteer labor. >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Close the loop on tasks. When a task is delegated to a committee or >>> individual, track its progress, both to know that it is or isn˙˙t >>> happening, >>> and to be able to acknowledge and incorporate the work when it˙˙s done. >>> Failing to acknowledge people˙˙s labor or to use the results of that labor >>> will virtually guarantee that the volunteer does not continue to help. >>> 2. >>> >>> Evaluate success and failure. GOTO 1. >>> >>> Aside: none if this will happen without a strong executive. Whether that >>> position is paid or not is up to the board, but it˙˙s clear that there needs >>> to be someone who can make decisions without endless rounds of fruitless >>> discussions. The board as currently constituted is not dysfunctional, but >>> it is mostly afunctional. >>> >>> I˙˙m will go so far as to suggest this: Fly every board member who is >>> available to a two or three day retreat. Get everyone in the same room, a >>> professional facilitator to speed the process, then figure out what OSGeo >>> is going to be and how to get there. Don˙˙t fret excessively about the >>> expense ˙˙ this isn˙˙t about saving money, it˙˙s about saving OSGeo. >>> >>> If you ask me, irrelevancy is a fate worse than death. Be bold! It˙˙s >>> better to try to do something big and new then fail than to simply fade >>> away and be forgotten. >>> Though my comments above may sound harsh, they are sent with the very best >>> of intentions. I want OSGeo to succeed, but OSGeo is never going to succeed >>> if it doesn˙˙t know what it˙˙s try to succeed at. Without real reform, I >>> don˙˙t see success happening, just irrelevance. Here˙˙s hoping this gets the >>> ball rolling. >>> >>> Darrell >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Board mailing list >>> bo...@lists.osgeo.org >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board > _______________________________________________ > 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