Thanks for the balanced discussion Rob and Jeff: I have enjoyed the feeling of community at LocationTech, and appreciate your assistance talking me through raster processing libraries last week. By the same token the Code Sprint in Philadelphia was a great chance to build bridges between projects.
I would echo your sentiment that LocationTech is focused on community building (rather than any kind of restriction to business/commercial interests). If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two organizations today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being "developer focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I think that is more a reflection of where the projects involved are in their incubation process that any strategic difference. A reason I have joined the OSGeo board is to help keep developers and projects front and centre on the OSGeo agenda. Difficult when OSGeo has so much other excellent work going on! -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 15 November 2015 at 15:09, Rob Emanuele <rdemanu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Thanks for your thoughts and words, I appreciate the effort you put into > explaining yourself. > > I wanted to clarify one point, based on this text: > > > I have followed the development of that organization right from the > beginning, where they smartly filled a void by aiming at the > business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial (of course, recently > they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my sanity, that this was > false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused instead on the same > goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT and press release, > and you will see their early visions). > > I believe this is in response to what I had brought up on another thread, > and I wanted to make sure I was clear. I did not mean to say that > LocationTech does not aim to fill the void of bringing together the > business/commercial side of the open source community with the > users/developers. I took issue with your claim that *the* core goal of > LocationTech was "to promote business and give those businesses a stage." > > As a project lead who's project is incubating at LocationTech and who's > participated in a number of facets of the organization, I have not once > felt the pressure of a business trying to promote themselves through my > work, or that a business was trying to use my work to take some stage. I've > only felt supported as an open source developer in an open source > community. Surely this is a goal of OSGeo as well, to have members of the > open source community feel supported; I would hope that would be in the set > of goals for any organization in our field. That does not mean LocationTech > has the exact same goals as OSGeo; they share goals but have their > differences. The example you rightly point out is that there are specific > aims towards supporting commercial friendly open source, for instance by > connecting the open source development work that is desired on the > commercial side to the support, financial or otherwise, of the businesses > that desire that work. The point in my original response was that to say > "the core" goal of LocationTech was to promote business and give business a > stage, was to imply that LocationTech was at it's core only concerned about > the commercial side's interests and not those of the developers or users. I > don't know that I'm fit to speak for LocationTech as a whole, but again my > experience as a project lead and developer who participates in LocationTech > is that the core of LocationTech is *not* about pushing business and > commercial concerns into my work or my dealings with the community. And for > me, as someone who really believes in the tenets and philosophies of open > source/libre, and who has taken personal effort to remain vigilant about > money and power as a potential poison to workings of a community trying to > operate by those tenets, when someone talks about a whole organization > being at it's core pushing the interests of powerful businesses, I get > nervous. I get scared that the organization might taint the open source > world with it's focus on bottom lines and proprietary ownership. And I > think we should all remain vigilant about the influences of money and > power, and that it's good to call it out if there's suspicion. But it's > also good to call out if an organization is being cast into a poisonous > role unfairly, which is what I've felt like has gone on a lot while reading > discussions (not just by you) on this mailing list. > > This is again clarifying a response I had to something you had said > earlier, and I'm not trying to harp on something you had said and would > rather focus on what you are saying now. I appreciate your recent comments > on LocationTech and Andrea's work specifically. I just felt the need to > clarify my point a bit. Again, thanks for the work you put into explaining > yourself, and also the work you do for the community, much of which I'm > sure is very opaque to me but is assumed and appreciated nonetheless. > > Best, > Rob > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jeff McKenna < > jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote: > >> Hi Cameron, >> >> Thank you for your message. It is very refreshing to speak on this topic >> openly here, as others would rather send me strong private messages >> questioning my sanity, and making threats. I realize that many cannot be >> open on this topic for various reasons. >> >> Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very >> rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation. I am not >> muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation >> whenever that is required. If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all >> year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and "obstructive", >> then yes you are fully right. >> >> Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a >> big supporter of LocationTech. I was involved in the beginning of >> LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first subscribers >> to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside their >> #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from new LocationTech >> community members (technical readers will find it interesting to join their >> IRC channel now on freenode and see the first message that is displayed >> when entering their channel "LocationTech: location aware open source >> software friendly to commercialization."). I have followed the development >> of that organization right from the beginning, where they smartly filled a >> void by aiming at the business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial >> (of course, recently they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my >> sanity, that this was false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused >> instead on the same goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT >> and press release, and you will see their early visions). Which is why I >> asked now to hear the vision of LocationTech (I was not answered, but >> someone else pointed to an FAQ just made). In any case, no I am not >> insane, I have always followed LocationTech closely. >> >> I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly, >> and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested in >> Open Source. In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and represent >> OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, including my >> health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow the OSGeo >> community. In this event I can bet that I will speak personally to over >> 100 developers, students, decision makers, and researchers; I bet I will >> personally talk to over 20 businesses looking at OSGeo. Those who know me >> well know that this is why I make those trips (I don't go for presentations >> etc.), it is that face to face representation that is so very important, >> especially in the long run. >> >> As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to >> all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words you've >> used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first negative ones >> used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In the big theater >> room that is the community, there will always be those that disagree with >> me, and I value their opinion as well. >> >> Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes. New >> committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the scene >> and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form initially, and >> I am ok with that. The core community members in the OSGeo foundation know >> that I support them in every way that I can. I often am actively working 2 >> or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for that region, talking with those >> regions members, getting them to think of the possibilities, years before >> the release of the call for hosting. To you and others it looks like I >> have no innovation, no new ideas, I don't work with community leaders, >> because you don't see me working behind the scenes for OSGeo. I am ok with >> that. You can keep going on in thinking this way of me, but I am very >> proud of what I do for OSGeo, what I constantly try to do for OSGeo. >> Long-time members of OSGeo know how I have failed in several proposals to >> past OSGeo boards, and to this day those so-called "failures" are my most >> proud moments. But yes, you can always argue that I am not innovative and >> do not help OSGeo. >> >> I am also not wired to think of "money" first. I follow my heart and I >> try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, always, even >> if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my career. I do it, for >> the love of OSGeo. I also realize that it is this fact, of how I am wired, >> that causes conflict with others (another example is my father, who >> constantly says I should go get a real job and earn the money I deserve, he >> sees me struggle financially and it drives him crazy). Instead of money, >> my goal in life is to be happy and do well for society. I feel OSGeo and >> its local chapters fits in perfectly with my own personal goals, and I give >> to OSGeo everything I can, every ounce of my being. It is, what I do and >> what I enjoy. >> >> Ok back on track again: >> >> I truly feel that Andrea is doing a great job for LocationTech, always >> has. We have known each other for a long time, since back when I was the >> MapServer users group chair in Ottawa and she first attended. I have >> always treated Andrea and LocationTech with respect. >> >> (before you say how false that is, I will now go into my vision for OSGeo) >> >> Vision For OSGeo >> ================ >> >> (I should first state that I have called a face to face meeting with the >> OSGeo Board members to work together on topics such as vision and the goals >> of OSGeo, and how to achieve those goals, and that meeting will be in >> January, attended by all members of this new OSGeo board) >> >> "My vision is for OSGeo to be the Open Source geospatial community all >> across the globe, everywhere and anywhere, and have fun doing it. The >> OSGeo community is special, we are unique, we do great things for the >> world, we are open, and we have fun. We accept anyone into our community >> and will give them the spotlight, to help their local community and the >> world share its spatial information. We are OSGeo." >> >> Many have seen me speak about "community" all around the world since >> about 2008, and it is OSGeo's community that is so valued. This vision >> puts our community in that spotlight, and is something that I already know >> that we all follow in our hearts. It is the OSGeo spirit that drives us >> all, that some may not understand, but we can teach them and help them >> share their geospatial information openly, and, show them how fun it is. >> >> How to get there >> ================ >> >> Focus on Developing Regions >> --------------------------- >> >> Over the next 5 or 10 years, various developing regions ("developing" in >> the sense of in-progress of becoming world leaders in open) across the >> globe, not known globally for their OSGeo chapters yet, will be given the >> OSGeo spotlight. These are important regions of the world, extremely >> active locally but not as well known globally for their efforts in Open >> Source geospatial. Some possible examples are South America, South Asia, >> Russia, China, Middle East, North Africa, and India. OSGeo will help give >> them the world stage for Open Source geospatial. >> >> Local Chapters >> -------------- >> >> All of the fun happens locally, it is through local chapters that OSGeo >> can grow Open Source geospatial software, learn, share, and have fun. We >> currently have about 30 official chapters, and about 30 in formation, but >> we have so much more work to do to help chapters grow in other >> communities. Let's help them! :) >> >> Projects >> -------- >> >> OSGeo projects and those in incubation are very stable and have vibrant >> communities. OSGeo must help these projects grow, and also help incoming >> projects find a home in our community. We must be accepting to changing >> trends and styles in the global industry. >> >> Charter Members >> --------------- >> >> OSGeo charter members will drive the formation of the Open Source >> geospatial community. >> >> Diversity >> --------- >> >> OSGeo must from now on have 50% women on its Board of Directors. This >> year's board has the first women ever on its board, but for 2016/2017 and >> beyond, women will again be strongly represented at the board level of the >> OSGeo foundation. This will help provide strong leadership from OSGeo >> throughout the world. >> >> Education and Training >> ---------------------- >> >> OSGeo will continue to spread Open Source geospatial to students and >> educators around the world, through the GeoForAll initiative. Focus will >> also change from post-secondary institutions to secondary/high-school, >> getting the young minds excited and interested in sharing and being open. >> >> Professional Service Providers >> ------------------------------ >> >> OSGeo will begin to focus on its service providers, and give them the >> spotlight they deserve, for choosing to operate their business around OSGeo >> projects. Focus will not only be placed on the larger businesses, but for >> the first time ever, small businesses will be given the spotlight from >> OSGeo. >> >> (in my travels, I estimate that 90% of OSGeo's service providers have <10 >> employees, yet we are not giving these businesses any spotlight) >> >> FOSS4G >> ------ >> >> OSGeo's hugely successful yearly event, the global FOSS4G, will continue >> to travel around the world each year. The goal of OSGeo's global FOSS4G >> event over the next 5 to 10 years will be to expand to new areas, plant the >> OSGeo seed locally, learn, share, and have fun. The goal will be to share >> this passion as much as possible, by having low-cost FOSS4G events. >> Regional FOSS4G events will satisfy local needs, in however the local >> chapters desire. >> >> Code Sprints >> ------------ >> >> OSGeo will actively promote its ability to support all code sprints of >> any size, no matter if there is only one project being enhanced. >> >> Working with other organizations >> -------------------------------- >> >> Working closely with other organizations will continue to be important >> for OSGeo. MoUs with organizations encourage communication, and usually >> have the 2 leaders of the parties sit down face to face once a year and >> talk (which is really priceless in the long-term for the commmunity) and >> review the agreement. Admittedly these agreements are not liked by the >> business-types, for not offering any firm details up front (like financial >> benefits), but in the long term these agreements help change opinions, give >> momentum to both parties, and end up creating jobs in the industry. >> >> Standards >> --------- >> >> Standards in geospatial software and data will continue to be one of the >> core parts of every OSGeo project. >> >> Financial Focus >> --------------- >> >> OSGeo has never been about generating revenue. OSGeo is and will be >> about being the Open Source geospatial community, sharing, learning, and >> having fun. OSGeo will continue to be lean, earning enough funding to help >> its annual FOSS4G and other events, maintain OSGeo's infrastructure, and >> other critical needs. The OSGeo foundation will continue to be volunteer >> driven. >> >> Discussion >> ========== >> >> In terms of what I would do to foster working with LocationTech, I would >> work with Andrea directly to develop an MoU agreement draft, and then take >> that draft to each of our Boards. To formalize this agreement, I would >> call for a "Summit" to be held around March of this year between the >> LocationTech Steering Committee members, and the OSGeo Board of Directors. >> This would be a one day meeting, in person, and not related to any other >> existing event (not added to an existing program/event). This would allow >> the OSGeo Board to meet in January, establish their goals, and then to sit >> down prepared with LocationTech Steering Committee in March. >> >> I do feel that the LocationTech/OSGeo relationship needs to be examined >> slowly, and this is why I made a stand here this/last week. I apologize to >> Andrea if I have offended her, or disrespected her in any way. >> >> About the above vision, I am aware that this was likely asked of me now, >> so that some can point out faults in my thinking, how I am wrong etc. That >> is ok, I accept that, and I also accept that I most likely made mistakes in >> writing this vision today, and I am sure the other OSGeo board members will >> help clarify this in January. I feel the process of creating a vision, and >> following through with that, should involve each and every OSGeo member, so >> I feel that I have nothing to hide and everything to gain. >> >> I would like to thank everyone, for again, being you, sharing the OSGeo >> passion, doing what you can, whether it is by teaching, writing, developing >> code, managing a business, learning something new, or just following along, >> your help and smile is what gets me through these challenging times. >> >> I would also like to deeply thank those who reached out to me this week, >> during this hard time on me, I will tell you that twice I was brought to >> tears sitting at my computer here reading the small thanks for representing >> them, sent from some far away country by a local leader. I do this for you >> all. >> >> Yours, >> >> -jeff >> >> >> -- >> Jeff McKenna >> President, OSGeo >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2015-11-13 4:27 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeff, >>> As president of OSGeo I've seen in you some admirable qualities. You >>> regularly travel around the world, talking passionately and eloquently >>> about OSGeo and Open Source. You monitor and contribute to many email >>> lists. For people "in the back row of OSGeo" you do a great job of >>> encouraging people to step forward and get involved. >>> >>> But, in supporting other OSGeo leaders, who might have a vision that was >>> not directly derived or aligned with your own, I've found your opinions >>> to often be very obstructive, confrontational, and lacking of any >>> innovative vision to resolve differences. This is inappropriate from a >>> community leader. It is the sort of behaviour likely to turn people away >>> from a community, and have them look for another community to work with. >>> >>> With regards to the relationship between OSGeo and LocationTech: >>> >>> * Could you please acknowledge that Andrea is also working toward the >>> best interests of the Open Source Geospatial community, even if she is >>> using a different path and vehicle to achieve this. >>> >>> * Could you please treat those who have a different opinion to you, >>> Andrea in this case, with respect and dignity, even if in your eyes they >>> are wronging you or what you believe in. >>> >>> * Rather than just tell LocationTech what they shouldn't do, provide >>> some vision and leadership and suggest what should be done instead. >>> (This is much harder). You may note that Andrea has answered your >>> questions as best she could in her FAQ. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> A bit of background and reality check: From memory, the FOSS4G 2009 PCO >>> was paid ~ $70,000 for managing the FOSS4G conference, and OSGeo >>> guaranteed the conference, not the PCO. OSGeo was lucky in 2012, when >>> FOSS4G was cancelled [1] and OSGeo didn't have to pay cancellation >>> expenses. Based on estimates of exposure for recent conferences, this >>> would likely have been a lot over $100,000. So being paid $90,000 to run >>> and guarantee a conference is in the right ball park. >>> >>> Year after year, after FOSS4G, there is discussion about the loss of >>> knowledge between conference organising teams. There is a clear >>> opportunity to have a PCO, or person take on a perpetual role supporting >>> FOSS4G events. For the first time, LocationTech has put a practical >>> proposal forward to fill this role, and help make FOSS4G better. This is >>> great, it would be solving a real problem. We might not accept the >>> proposal, but we certainly should not accuse LocationTech of foul play. >>> >>> Jeff, you've dismissed my request for a vision. (I acknowledge that >>> compiling a vision is difficult, and typically involves a collation of >>> lots of ideas from within the community). Here are some questions which >>> might help: >>> >>> * Should FOSS4G be run at minimum cost to delegates, or should it aim to >>> make money to fund OSGeo? >>> >>> * There are many valuable activities which OSGeo doesn't implement due >>> to not having volunteers step up, or having people step for a limited >>> period. Should OSGeo hire someone to implement such activities? Eg: Hire >>> someone or some organisation to support knowledge sharing between foss4g >>> conferences, have someone manage marketing, have someone chase sponsors, >>> ... Ie. Should OSGeo act as a low capital or high capital organisation? >>> >>> * Is there anything wrong with there being both low capital (OSGeo) and >>> high capital (LocationTech) organisations, both of which address >>> different users and capture difference communities? Both organisations >>> are running effectively now. Should they be restructured? If so how? >>> >>> * There has been mention of a MOU between LocationTech and OSGeo. Fine. >>> But what next? A MOU is just a first step, a means to an end, and by >>> itself is of little practical value. >>> >>> * A lot of thought was put into these questions and captured into the >>> OSGeo Board Priorities [2] a few years back. Do these priorities still >>> capture OSGeo goals? Please don't say what you don't want without >>> encouraging and ideally contributing to what you want instead. >>> >>> * Note, if you don't articulate a practical vision to follow, it will by >>> default be determined by someone else. >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2012_Lessons_Learned >>> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities >>> >>> On 14/11/2015 12:24 am, Jeff McKenna wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andrea, >>>> >>>> You seem to value the OSGeo community so much, so much in fact that >>>> you would smoothly court all 3 of our bidders for OSGeo's only source >>>> of revenue and publicity all year, our beloved global FOSS4G event. It >>>> is true that it is "ridiculous", from an organization that (apparently >>>> formerly) focused on commerce, to ask OSGeo to pay you (90,000 USD), >>>> to take control of OSGeo's only event (worth 1,000,000 USD), and then >>>> think that this is a fine since you offer (my answer: a polite no >>>> thank you) of handling losses for OSGeo's FOSS4G event, in maybe one >>>> of the strongest regions for attendees in the world? If we are >>>> speaking of commerce, this doesn't make sense. >>>> >>>> I think Maxi said it well, that we all are trying to understand your >>>> motives here. How about an MoU together, exchange of official >>>> letters, big press release, creating a working group of half >>>> LocationTech and half OSGeo board members, an exchange of talks at >>>> each others events, become the sustaining sponsor of OSGeo; instead, >>>> here we are. >>>> >>>> If you value the OSGeo community so much, why would you create a >>>> separate foundation with the exact same goals, and then later come >>>> back to the other foundation saying "no, we love you. Give us the >>>> right to run your event". Ha, pardon? >>>> >>>> -jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2015-11-12 7:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jeff, >>>>> >>>>> It is really hard to discuss this topic because you make stuff up. The >>>>> concerns stem from the fantasy rather than reality. >>>>> >>>>> The FAQ produced recently >>>>> < >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> does a pretty good job covering the situation. >>>>> >>>>> In 3 years, so far as I know, absolutely no harm has come to OSGeo as a >>>>> result of LocationTech, and certainly not from any official/intentional >>>>> actions. On the contrary, there's a nice body of ever growing benefits. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding your new claims: >>>>> >>>>> * The press releases & charter for LocationTech have not changed. >>>>> They're all still up where they always were and haven't been >>>>> modified. (seriously?!) >>>>> * LocationTech & OSGeo have had formal relations for some time as >>>>> Jody >>>>> notes. There is all kinds of collaboration happening frequently and >>>>> people are fine with it. >>>>> * We gave many examples in the FAQ about LocationTech helping OSGeo. >>>>> I'm not even sure that (positive list) was calculated necessarily >>>>> as >>>>> much as things that arise matter of course from the things the >>>>> group >>>>> does. >>>>> * The evidence is for all to see in the bid proposals, LocationTech >>>>> has offered to cover losses and promising payments on par with the >>>>> best payments from past FOSS4G's. The numbers are based on a >>>>> conservative budget. When you also factor that LocationTech has >>>>> sponsored in which money has flowed to OSGeo, your claims >>>>> LocationTech is setting sights on OSGeo income are even more >>>>> ridiculous. >>>>> * As Jody & others have noted, the Tour is something that was born >>>>> out >>>>> of LocationTech. It is inclusive to any who want to participate. >>>>> The >>>>> FAQ covers why LocationTech members & projects care about FOSS4G, >>>>> and it's very reasonable. >>>>> >>>>> It's worth saying that people involved with LocationTech have also been >>>>> involved with OSGeo for some time. Your efforts to portray them as >>>>> outsiders is bogus. They are as welcome as anyone else to participate. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what else to say. It's such shame to have this be >>>>> needlessly misrepresented. >>>>> >>>>> Andrea >>>>> >>>>> On 12/11/15 21:58, Jeff McKenna wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Cameron, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am also glad to speak of this publicly, this is a very important >>>>>> topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been thinking more and more about Rob's response (thank you so >>>>>> much Rob for taking the time to speak with me on that). I will speak >>>>>> honestly here again, and I don't mean to offend: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am now left with a realization that, what I always thought of >>>>>> LocationTech as created to help commercially-friendly geospatial >>>>>> software, is wrong. I always just assumed that they filled a nice >>>>>> hole in the equation, by focusing on business needs. As was pointed >>>>>> out to me today, their goals now are in fact the exact same as >>>>>> OSGeo's. In fact, I have to really dig now for the LocationTech's >>>>>> former tagline of "commercially-friendly.." on their website, but I >>>>>> found the initial press releases for LocationTech and there it is in >>>>>> the second sentence, and then entire paragraphs on that goal. Did >>>>>> something change there that I missed? >>>>>> >>>>>> So now, yes, I am confused. >>>>>> >>>>>> And no wonder that, from those initial 2012/2013 press releases from >>>>>> LocationTech, fast forward to 2015 and they are contacting each of our >>>>>> 3 bidding teams for FOSS4G 2017, I'm left with a sense of surprise and >>>>>> shock. The overlap exists, we are the same foundation, and, to make >>>>>> matters more pressing, LocationTech has politely declined any interest >>>>>> in creating their own global event for their community, and set their >>>>>> sights on OSGeo's only real source of revenue and global publicity, >>>>>> our yearly FOSS4G event. Now the pressure is on, as this 2017 >>>>>> discussion involves huge money, finances, brands, people's jobs, two >>>>>> communities, and our beloved FOSS4G event that we have painfully built >>>>>> to be a global brand. And yes passions are flowing, strong words of >>>>>> "fear", "bullying", "muck" are being dropped, and I have no doubt >>>>>> someone soon will say "inclusive" or "exclusive", and then "code of >>>>>> conduct", oh let's not forget "trademark" and even "lawyer" (to be >>>>>> honest, in the past week I've heard each of these words about this >>>>>> topic). It's all an absolute mess, if you ask my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> My vision is to work with foundations and organizations all around the >>>>>> world, locally or globally. OSGeo has done a great job on this, >>>>>> through our (admittedly slow process for some people) of MoUs, and >>>>>> building those relationships through designated committees or special >>>>>> sessions at FOSS4G events. >>>>>> >>>>>> This sudden thrust of LocationTech, by contacting each of our 3 >>>>>> bidders for 2017, is very calculated on their side, but on OSGeo's >>>>>> side, this is a hard pill to swallow so fast. >>>>>> >>>>>> I actually don't think it is OSGeo that should be the ones talking >>>>>> now. We haven't changed, we have always put on FOSS4G each year, >>>>>> moving around the globe. We put community first and foremost, our >>>>>> community is very strong. I think our community is what attracts >>>>>> LocationTech to OSGeo, why they strategically contacted each 2017 >>>>>> bidders, but I'd love to hear it from their mouths. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I don't believe it is OSGeo that should be the ones explaining >>>>>> ourselves now. I think this is the time for LocationTech to explain >>>>>> their vision, how it has changed over the years, and how it sees >>>>>> itself in the ecosystem, because OSGeo has been around now a long time >>>>>> and their is no confusion about OSGeo. >>>>>> >>>>>> In regards to the current situation, I wish we could start with an >>>>>> MoU, work slowly on building a relationship, do not strategically >>>>>> contact bidders or groups on either side, but work together on >>>>>> building this ecosystem - maybe offering each other a "topic talk" >>>>>> extended session at each of our events, maybe discussing becoming a >>>>>> sustaining sponsor of each other's foundation, maybe having a shared >>>>>> "working group" on this involving both LocationTech and OSGeo board >>>>>> members. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've done a lot of writing the last couple of days. I hope this at >>>>>> least helps explain what is on my mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, as some privately enjoy writing to me and saying I am wrong, well >>>>>> yes, I am often wrong, but at least I am speaking publicly, and trying >>>>>> so hard always to make sure that OSGeo and FOSS4G are properly >>>>>> represented. >>>>>> >>>>>> -jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-12 4:04 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, Venka, Jody, Rob, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion and starting to put ideas out >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> public discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff, Venka, I get the impression from your emails that you are >>>>>>> concerned that LocationTech might "steal" community mind-share, and >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> particular take control of key OSGeo tasks such as FOSS4G and in the >>>>>>> process change focus of FOSS4G into a more commercial event, which >>>>>>> increases prices, and looses core community driven focus. Am I >>>>>>> right? Or >>>>>>> could you please clarify. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the record, at the time I was disappointed at the time that >>>>>>> Location >>>>>>> Tech was created, and the functionality of Location Tech didn't get >>>>>>> created under the umbrella of OSGeo. However both organisations exist >>>>>>> now, and I can see that in moving forward that both organisations can >>>>>>> exist successfully together and complement each other. (+1 to Rob's >>>>>>> comments). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A few years back, when both Jeff and I were on the board, we >>>>>>> co-authored >>>>>>> "Board Priorities" [1]. (Ok, I did a lot of writing, but the board >>>>>>> did >>>>>>> contribute and sign off on it). Prior boards have similarly outlined >>>>>>> OSGeo's priorities which have been embedded in our official >>>>>>> documents. >>>>>>> The "Board Priorities" include focus on OSGeo acting as a "low >>>>>>> capital, >>>>>>> volunteer focused organisation", and acknowledge that a the role of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> "high capital" business model is better accomplished by LocationTech. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeff, Venka, Jody and others on the board, what is your vision for >>>>>>> OSGeo's future direction, and in particular, what is your vision for >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> future relationship with Location Tech? Should OSGeo revise our focus >>>>>>> and goals? It might help to start by being specific. What should >>>>>>> OSGeo >>>>>>> take responsibility for? What should Location Tech take >>>>>>> responsibility >>>>>>> for? Are the organisations appropriately structured and resourced to >>>>>>> take on that responsibility? If not, what should change to make that >>>>>>> happen? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With regards to private (and threatening emails), I suggest replying >>>>>>> with something like: >>>>>>> "Thanks for your comments, you have some valid concerns. I'd like to >>>>>>> respond to your suggestions publicly so others can join in and we can >>>>>>> deal with your suggestions appropriately. Is it ok if I do so?" >>>>>>> If you don't get the ok, don't deal with the suggestion. But I >>>>>>> suggest >>>>>>> refrain from implication of bullying as it implies that >>>>>>> LocationTech is >>>>>>> playing dirty tactics, which reflects badly on LocationTech and >>>>>>> OSGeo as >>>>>>> it suggests that the two organisations are unable to resolve issues >>>>>>> professionally. (I'm hoping that mentioned "bullying" is just a >>>>>>> case of >>>>>>> some people getting a bit more passionate that maybe they should). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Board_Priorities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13/11/2015 3:53 am, Rob Emanuele wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are right, commercial-friendliness certainly does play a part in >>>>>>>> LocationTech. The way I've seen that enacted is by the use of the >>>>>>>> Eclipse Foundation's legal department to ensure that the projects >>>>>>>> which are supported by LocationTech are declared by a legal team >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> free of proprietary or wrongly-licensed code. In this way, >>>>>>>> commercial >>>>>>>> entities can use the projects with some assurance that they will not >>>>>>>> be sued down the line for code that was not actually open in the way >>>>>>>> they thought it was. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, there is a steering committee that makes decisions about how >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> budget will be used. The budget mainly consists of member company's >>>>>>>> dues. The members of the steering committee are decided by >>>>>>>> membership >>>>>>>> level (large membership gets representation on the steering >>>>>>>> committee) >>>>>>>> as well as a lower-membership level elected committee. There is also >>>>>>>> representation by the developers, who vote independently of any >>>>>>>> company and are there to represent the committers on the project. >>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>> more information, you can read through some links here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.locationtech.org/charter >>>>>>>> https://www.locationtech.org/election2015 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In practice, as a maintainer of an open source project and >>>>>>>> developer, >>>>>>>> what LocationTech has meant to me is support for my project in ways >>>>>>>> that are not centered around business. To me it's been a place where >>>>>>>> I've gotten to collaborate with similar open source projects and >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> my project be promoted through events and other channels; for >>>>>>>> instance >>>>>>>> I participate in Google Summer of Code and Facebook Open Academy as >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> mentor through the Eclipse Foundation. Perhaps these are needs that >>>>>>>> can also be served by OSGeo, but they have in practice been met by >>>>>>>> LocationTech. From my perspective as a project lead and open source >>>>>>>> developer, that there are multiple channels that can potentially >>>>>>>> support me and my project is a great thing and signs of a healthy >>>>>>>> domain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did not start LocationTech. So for me it's not a question of, why >>>>>>>> should LocationTech be created when there is already OSGeo; >>>>>>>> LocationTech already exists, and I don't think it's up to me to >>>>>>>> question it's existence. Nor do I think it's a useful exercise to >>>>>>>> question the existence of something that clearly has support and is >>>>>>>> supporting others. I can only decide which organizations I believe >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> and support, and what I can get out of those organizations as far as >>>>>>>> them supporting me. So on a personal level, my thoughts are that >>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>> OSGeo and LocationTech are good organizations. I'd like to find ways >>>>>>>> to support both organizations, and find ways both organizations can >>>>>>>> support me and my project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On a more general level, I'm against centralization. Having >>>>>>>> diversity >>>>>>>> in governance structures, funding models and support channels is a >>>>>>>> good thing, and I don't want there to be only one "true" >>>>>>>> organization >>>>>>>> that I can look to for support. However, like I mentioned, the ideal >>>>>>>> would be that those organizations could figure out how to use their >>>>>>>> difference skill sets to work together on making the community as a >>>>>>>> whole move forward. And that is what I am hoping OSGeo and >>>>>>>> LocationTech can do (as well as any other related organizations). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jody did a talk at FOSS4G NA 2015 on some of the differences between >>>>>>>> LocationTech and OSGeo, I recommend it: >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/sdpEa6XdQEo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jeff McKenna >>>>>>>> <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your very thoughtful response. You summarize the >>>>>>>> situation very well. I think talking openly like this on this >>>>>>>> topic, is the only way to make this all work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It sounds like I am wrong about LocationTech's goals; at the >>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>> time then, if that is the case, that LocationTech is not about >>>>>>>> commerce (doesn't "commercially friendly" encourage business >>>>>>>> interest?), then what was the need to create a separate new >>>>>>>> foundation, also focused on growing Open Source geospatial >>>>>>>> software? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope we can speak openly here Rob, I do not mean any >>>>>>>> disrespect >>>>>>>> to you personally or to LocationTech (some take it personal). >>>>>>>> Please share here the reasons you see to have 2 foundations >>>>>>>> focused on the same goal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -jeff >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-12 11:37 AM, Rob Emanuele wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sorry to hear you are being bullied in private messages. >>>>>>>> It is >>>>>>>> perhaps best to bring in the Code of Conduct committee to >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> handle >>>>>>>> this; direct threats and private bulling tactics seem in >>>>>>>> violation with >>>>>>>> the CoC, and there should be steps taken to ensure that our >>>>>>>> community >>>>>>>> doesn't have bulling in our midst that goes unaddressed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm disappointed that you take LocationTech's core goal as >>>>>>>> "to >>>>>>>> promote >>>>>>>> business and give those businesses a stage". Your point of >>>>>>>> view and >>>>>>>> behavior on the lists makes more sense knowing that, though; >>>>>>>> if you >>>>>>>> believe that LocationTech is really about promoting the >>>>>>>> businesses, and >>>>>>>> not the greater community, then having LocationTech involved >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> FOSS4G conferences would diminish the non-business community >>>>>>>> members' >>>>>>>> role in the conference, which would be a Bad thing. However, >>>>>>>> as a member >>>>>>>> of the LocationTech PMC and someone who was/is involved in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> FOSS4G NA >>>>>>>> 2015 and FOSS4G NA 2016 process, as well as someone involved >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> FOSS4G 2017 Philadelphia bid, I want to assure you that is >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> the case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is real focus and real work being done at LocationTech >>>>>>>> to help the >>>>>>>> community of developers and users of FOSS4G. In this >>>>>>>> instance >>>>>>>> I'm using >>>>>>>> FOSS4G for what the acronym actually means, Free and Open >>>>>>>> Source >>>>>>>> Software for Geospatial, not referring to the conference >>>>>>>> that has >>>>>>>> captured that name. Both LocationTech and OSGeo exist to >>>>>>>> support FOSS4G, >>>>>>>> and the greater community (greater then both of those >>>>>>>> organizations) >>>>>>>> that use and develop FOSS4G. There are differences in the >>>>>>>> organizations >>>>>>>> for sure, and I think highlighting those differences and >>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>> understanding how they serve the community in different >>>>>>>> ways is >>>>>>>> important. The ideal scenario that I see is that both >>>>>>>> organizations >>>>>>>> would use those differences to collaborate and have a >>>>>>>> sum-greater-than-it's-parts type of support system for >>>>>>>> FOSS4G. >>>>>>>> Instead, >>>>>>>> we have a situation where there's distrust, finger pointing, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> political "power plays" against each other. We have the >>>>>>>> president of one >>>>>>>> of the organizations characterizing the core goal of the >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> organization in a dangerously wrong way. We have decisions >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> discussions about a million dollar revenue generating >>>>>>>> conference focused >>>>>>>> on that million dollars, rather then how to ensure that >>>>>>>> conference does >>>>>>>> the best job possible at supporting and pushing forward the >>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>> We have the precious resource that is the energy of >>>>>>>> volunteers >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>> spent on political infighting rather than on collaboration >>>>>>>> towards >>>>>>>> serving the community. I'm not sure the best path forward >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> this, but >>>>>>>> I want to declare that the situation as I see it is bad >>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>> community, collaboration between OSGeo and LocationTech >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be good >>>>>>>> for the community, and I hope as a whole we can move towards >>>>>>>> that better >>>>>>>> future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hear your concerns for the price of the FOSS4G NA tickets, >>>>>>>> though I'll >>>>>>>> point out to people who are following along that it's not as >>>>>>>> simple as a >>>>>>>> flat $1000 dollar rate. I encourage you to look at the >>>>>>>> registration >>>>>>>> pricing breakdown when it's published for FOSS4G NA 2016, be >>>>>>>> sure to >>>>>>>> apply for a non-corporate pass if you will not be reimbursed >>>>>>>> by a >>>>>>>> company, and to apply for a scholarship if the cost is still >>>>>>>> too high. >>>>>>>> Also, if you are giving a talk, registration is free, so >>>>>>>> please submit! >>>>>>>> The Call For Proposals is now open >>>>>>>> (<https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp>https://2016.foss4g-na.org/cfp). >>>>>>>> Jeff, your presence was missed at FOSS4G NA 2015 and I hope >>>>>>>> that you can >>>>>>>> come to Raleigh for FOSS4G NA 2016. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jeff McKenna >>>>>>>> <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> >>>>>>>> <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-11-12 7:01 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have gotten a number of private emails expressing >>>>>>>> concerns about >>>>>>>> LocationTech being involved in several of the foss4g >>>>>>>> bids. I >>>>>>>> guess I had >>>>>>>> the opposite concern last year when there was the >>>>>>>> joint OSGeo / >>>>>>>> LocationTech foss4gna conference. I was kind of >>>>>>>> embarrassed our >>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>> as a community - would prefer to see us as welcoming >>>>>>>> and supportive >>>>>>>> (especially as we had a first time organizer that >>>>>>>> could use our >>>>>>>> support). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jody, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am very glad that you brought this up publicly. >>>>>>>> Lately I >>>>>>>> too have >>>>>>>> received very disturbing direct emails, containing >>>>>>>> threats >>>>>>>> of "if >>>>>>>> this happens you watch" "karma you watch yourself" "if >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> lose you >>>>>>>> watch out" and direct bullying tactics, for speaking my >>>>>>>> mind on this >>>>>>>> issue. The same people sending these threats will not >>>>>>>> speak >>>>>>>> publicly on this, so I have asked them to stop sending >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>> messages, but the messages continue, so I have stopped >>>>>>>> answering >>>>>>>> them. These are "power-play" emails sent directly to >>>>>>>> me, >>>>>>>> but I will >>>>>>>> tell them here publicly, bullying me will not stop me >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>> openly about OSGeo's one event all year, the global >>>>>>>> FOSS4G. (for >>>>>>>> those not following the 2017 conference discussions, you >>>>>>>> would have >>>>>>>> to read a long thread to get caught up >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Call-to-discuss-FOSS4G-2017-proposals-prior-to-voting-td5234235.html >>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As someone just wrote last night on another list, likely >>>>>>>> there would >>>>>>>> be no one else that has attended more FOSS4G events, >>>>>>>> regional, >>>>>>>> global, anything, than myself. I make a point of going >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> a FOSS4G >>>>>>>> event, to help grow the local community, no matter what >>>>>>>> size of the >>>>>>>> event or where it is. Lately in my FOSS4G travels I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> noticed a >>>>>>>> return to our FOSS4G roots, where the popular events are >>>>>>>> very low >>>>>>>> cost, aimed at developers, users, students, researchers, >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> smaller companies trying to make a living (a great >>>>>>>> recent >>>>>>>> example is >>>>>>>> the FOSS4G-Como event this past July). Getting back to >>>>>>>> the topic of >>>>>>>> your message: I too have been embarrassed by recent >>>>>>>> FOSS4G-NorthAmerica events; I was shocked to see the >>>>>>>> 1,000 USD >>>>>>>> registration fee there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I was not too upset, because no one is traveling the >>>>>>>> small >>>>>>>> FOSS4Gs like me to see the difference, and I didn't see >>>>>>>> complaints >>>>>>>> voiced from the local NorthAmerican community. >>>>>>>> LocationTech >>>>>>>> involved in FOSS4G-NA is a good thing, to promote >>>>>>>> business >>>>>>>> and give >>>>>>>> those businesses a stage; the core goal of LocationTech. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However now we are in the process for deciding the >>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>> FOSS4G >>>>>>>> event for 2017, OSGeo's flagship event, attended by the >>>>>>>> international community, and we must be very careful. >>>>>>>> Working with >>>>>>>> foundations is good (hence all of OSGeo's great MoUs), >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> I'll use >>>>>>>> the upcoming example that the 2016 team is considering, >>>>>>>> giving >>>>>>>> LocationTech a 90 minute slot in the program for their >>>>>>>> projects (and >>>>>>>> the same for OSGeo, UN, likely OGC, and other >>>>>>>> organizations). This >>>>>>>> is a wonderful way for OSGeo's FOSS4G event to involve >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> organizations. I hope that LocationTech will also give >>>>>>>> OSGeo a 90 >>>>>>>> minute slot in their big conference someday as well; >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>> exactly what I see as best-case scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the other hand, not signing an MoU, and then just >>>>>>>> contacting all >>>>>>>> of our 2017 bidders, is quite a different method to get >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> table. Instead of a long-standing MoU agreement that >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> foster >>>>>>>> the relationship throughout the years, as we have with >>>>>>>> so many >>>>>>>> organizations, we are faced with a decision now that >>>>>>>> involves both >>>>>>>> foundations and 1,000,000 USD (the annual FOSS4G event >>>>>>>> generates a >>>>>>>> lot of revenue, making this very attractive to >>>>>>>> professional >>>>>>>> conference companies all over the world, I was phoned >>>>>>>> yesterday by >>>>>>>> one from Europe, for example). The money is there, huge >>>>>>>> money, and >>>>>>>> huge exposure for these companies. And their jobs are >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the line, >>>>>>>> in their minds. Hence this situation we are forced to >>>>>>>> deal with >>>>>>>> now, and these nasty private messages being sent to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's try to remain positive though, as we have 3 great >>>>>>>> bids for >>>>>>>> FOSS4G 2017, and a solid team working hard already to >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> FOSS4G-2016 in Bonn another amazing event. OSGeo has >>>>>>>> never been so >>>>>>>> active and vibrant as so many initiatives and location >>>>>>>> chapters grow >>>>>>>> all around the world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for listening, and thank you Jody for bringing >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> topic to >>>>>>>> the public lists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -jeff >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> 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