+1 On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So far I have enjoyed this thread for the number of ideas it brings forth. > > Just want to highlight the small difference between a forge (SourceForge, > Google Code, Gitourious, GitHub) and Foundation (OSGeo, Apache, Linux, > Eclipse). > > Forges tend to focus software version control, build facilities, and > artifact hosting. They make money by selling these same facilities to > enterprise, while often accepting open source projects "on board" as a form > of free advertising. > > Foundations focus on projects (license, legal, governance, promotion .. > some even include a social agenda). When they make money they do so by > providing vendor neutral table for organizations to collaborate together > (even if they kick each other under the table on occasion). Software > hosting services are incidental to these goals - although some foundations > like Apache take on hosting as way to control the legal exposure that comes > with hosting code. > > One advantage of OSGeo as a foundation is we have the flexibility to allow > out project to change up which forge they use over time (seeing projects > migrate from cvs, subversion, SourceForge / GoogleCode / GitHub). > > For projects OSGeo provides something to "belong to" and a fair brand > boost :) > > So yeah, if OSGeo rolled up the carpet we would have to set up another > foundation for the projects the next day. > -- > Jody > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On 26 September 2015 at 12:38, Frank Gasdorf <fg...@users.sourceforge.net> > wrote: > >> Thanks Darrell for such a clear and structured statement. >> I'd like to add a few thoughts. First I'd like to aggree to the >> infrastructure thing, in times Open Source projects can get a space (SCM, >> Ticket system, Build infrastructure, etc) for free everywhere it's kind of >> wired OSGeo paying for it. Like Jo noticed, things changing over time and >> maybe here projects can move forward - e.g. like GeoTools and GeoServer >> did. The point was and still is, that's not OSGeo driven to provide a >> common infrastructure for OSGeo projects. Each project cares about it's own >> setup and that burns a lot of volunteering time. However, maybe here can >> start the discussion, if that would be a benefit for projects. >> IMHO FOSS4G is a brand, wheras OSGeo isn't. I never has been involved yet >> organizing a FOSS4G but it sounds like a hugh effort from local teams >> slightly supported by OSGeo. I love FOSS4G's because its a chance to have >> face to face meetings with Contributors and Users from all over the world. >> In the past I remember the WMS shootouts where I got the impression, >> OSGeo/FOSS4G is the best place it can be happen: Several projects in a >> battle to improve these all together. Thats making the world a better >> place.. >> On other levels, would it be worth to setup similiar competitions for >> other fields: Tile caches, Desktop clients, Processing Implementations and >> so on. Would that help to push projects and provide comparable values >> between OS and proprietary projects. >> >> Same for codesprints and hackathons... Sponsoring such events helps >> growing community, improving projects and finally helps users who using >> this great software stack >> How can OSGeo help creating Solutions with Components of this stack. >> OSGeo Live is the first step I guess: Setup things and finding out how the >> fit together. We learned a lot from other projects within OSGeo live and >> that improves each project I guess. What's the major output for Users? >> >> What about "Long Term Support", would that be a field OSGeo could help >> projects and users in the same way? >> Maybe we can think about other sponsoring models, where Companies paying >> anual fees. What could the expect from OSGeo, what would be an added value >> for these? >> And finally, from a uDig perspective: Whats the different between >> Geospatial organizations such as OSGeo and LocationTech. From my >> perspective : They have a totally different history, I 'd say community >> driven vs. company driven, which includes different sponsoring models. >> Maybe its worth to think about: Whats the driver, the community or the >> business behind sponsoring companies? >> >> Again, Thank you Darrell for initial post, I guess the discussion helps a >> lot to get a Strategy for the future >> >> Warm regards, Frank >> >> 2015-09-26 15:29 GMT+02:00 Jo Cook <joc...@astuntechnology.com>: >> >>> Hi All, and especially Darrel, >>> >>> In his email Darrel articulated some ideas that I have been having for a >>> couple of years now, but haven't been able to clearly define. >>> >>> So firstly I'd like to say that I totally agree with Darrel's points >>> (and Michael Gerlek's previously)- OSGeo is definitely in danger of >>> becoming irrelevant. Some of this is down to being a victim of its own >>> success. The projects have, in many cases, matured and become popular to >>> the point where they no longer need OSGeo. I'd really like to see a >>> thorough assessment of our goals and objectives to decide what is still >>> important. The availability of infrastructure, version control, open data, >>> etc have improved massively over the last 5 years so now is a great time >>> for a real spring-clean and decide what we need to keep and what we don't. >>> >>> What does the world really need from OSGeo that it can't get from anyone >>> else? What problems could we solve moving forward? Those are the things we >>> should focus on. >>> >>> I'm currently trying to write an article on open geospatial in 2020 and >>> I can honestly say I'm struggling to see a place for OSGeo in it. I'd >>> really like to be proved wrong (and I'd love some predictions for my >>> article, but that's for another discussion). >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jo >>> On 26 Sep 2015 1:40 pm, "Just van den Broecke" <j...@justobjects.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Milo, >>>> >>>> That you agree Darrel's statements is your opinion and fine in any open >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> I react here on your phrase: '"empty talkers" from my country run for >>>> charter membership'. >>>> >>>> We have 9 Charter Members from the Netherlands, including me. I know >>>> each of them, and IMO they are far from "empty talkers". They all spend >>>> long voluntary hours in an array of activities that support OSGeo's global >>>> and OSGeo.nl local mission and FOSS in general. To name a few: >>>> Sebastiaan Couwenberg (2015) spends ample time in Debian packaging >>>> Barend Köbben (2012) helping/speaking at FOSS4G, org academic track >>>> We all know what Jeroen and Bart have accomplished. I could go on. Not >>>> all charter members need to make software, some make things happen like >>>> organizing local OSGeo.nl events and acting in the LOC for the upcoming >>>> FOSS4G in Bonn. >>>> >>>> So I hope your "empty talkers" phrase came out of a sudden impulse, >>>> that we all have from time to time. I had to react to clarify some things. >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Just van den Broecke >>>> Secretary OSGeo.nl Foundation >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26-09-15 00:12, Milo van der Linden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Being a "don't talk, act" member since 2008, entrepreneur and former >>>>> chairman of a couple of local initiatives, I strongly agree. >>>>> >>>>> Seeing all the "empty talkers" from my country run for charter >>>>> membership and still not having geoserver, which is the most mature >>>>> open >>>>> geospatial product I can think of pas incubation made me completely >>>>> lose >>>>> interest in OSGeo. >>>>> >>>>> I am disappointed, a little frustrated and plotting a business course >>>>> that values open source and open knowledge. OSGeo or any in-crowd will >>>>> have no part in my future. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your honest and to the point analyses. >>>>> >>>>> Milo >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2015 21:58, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darr...@garnix.org >>>>> <mailto:darr...@garnix.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> explicitlygets no support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at >>>>> its own conferenceto 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 strategyis 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 wholein 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 needOSGeo. 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 >>>>> shouldhave 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?” >>>>> >>>>> 3. >>>>> >>>>> Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask >>>>> the >>>>> question, “How will we know if we’ve succeeded?” >>>>> >>>>> 4. >>>>> >>>>> Prioritize the goals. >>>>> >>>>> 5. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 6. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 7. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss