That is fine Maxi, I think the point is to be good neighbours. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 PM Massimiliano Cannata < massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch> wrote:
> Even if I'm willing to accept narrative b, i cannot exclude narrative a > and thus i'm not willing in expose osgeo to this concrete risk. > For this reason i believe we should just suspend the "relations" until we > have clarified this. > It is too important not to make any mistake driven by th LT pressure > instead of taking the necessary time to start colaaborating a pice at a > time and build reciprocal trust among the two entities. > > This is my vision of the facts, i don't say it is bad i dont say it is > good but trust is something has to be build day by day: i don't give the > keys of my house to someone i know from a week just becaouse he looks > gentile ;-) > > Maxi > Il 17/Nov/2015 03:30, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garn...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >> Thank you for the two narratives Rob, I find it a much more constructive >> presentation then the FAQ provided previously. >> >> Narrative B matches my own experience, although I have focused on >> project/developer level interaction (and largely ignored any capacity as a >> PCO). I think I can make the slightly stronger statement that as a >> committer representative on the LocationTech steering committee I have >> always sought a constructive engagement. >> >> >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> On 16 November 2015 at 16:59, Rob Emanuele <rdemanu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think there's two narratives that are at conflict in this entire >>> thread. I'm going to try to try to spell them out as I see them: >>> >>> A. LocationTech is a newer-than-OSGeo organization that is trying to >>> make a name for itself, capture market share, promote it's brand, in >>> general act in a way that makes itself grow. The intention behind >>> LocationTech's actions in offering services as a professional conference >>> organizer is mostly for it's own gain; LocationTech wants to smoothly slide >>> into becoming a part of OSGeo's annual conference for the profit and >>> promotion of itself, to the potential loss of OSGeo. For that reason, it is >>> best for the OSGeo community to protect itself from LocationTech, keep >>> measured distance between the organizations, not allow it to become part of >>> the FOSS4G international event, or at least to be suspicious of it's stated >>> good intentions in offering itself to be PCO. The real story is that >>> LocationTech's intentions are primarily about the profits and higher >>> visibility it will gain from being part of FOSS4G, and the help it is >>> offering plays a secondary role. >>> >>> B. LocationTech is an organization that was created out of intentions to >>> help parts of the community that were perhaps not best served by OSGeo at >>> the time. It has it's own governance and ways of doing things, which >>> include being backed by small and large companies looking to contribute >>> financial support to the open source community, which allows for things >>> like paid staff. The model is different than OSGeo, the structure is >>> different than OSGeo, and the aims are similar but have differences. One >>> differences is that it's parent organization is the Eclipse Foundation, who >>> have professional conference organizers on staff and a lot of experience >>> running successful conferences. Seeing this is a valuable thing that the >>> open source geospatial community can take advantage of, LocationTech offers >>> it's services as a professional conference organizer to the FOSS4G NA >>> regional conferences, and now has offered it's services to the >>> international conference in 2017. While certainly not eschewing the >>> increase in visibility in the community that being part of the conferences >>> would afford LocationTech, that plays a secondary role to the earnest >>> desire to help the open source geospatial community. >>> >>> Have I captured these narratives correctly or incorrectly? They are >>> based on impressions and implicit opinions that I've tried to understand >>> from these conversations. I think perhaps explicitly stating them would be >>> useful, so if I have failed to do so correctly please correct me. >>> >>> I obviously have a preference for believing that narrative B best fits >>> the reality of the situation. Self promotion surely must play some role in >>> LocationTech's actions, but is it naive to think that the intentions of >>> LocationTech are for the community first and itself second? Perhaps. I >>> don't think so though. The alternative is certainly not how I operate when >>> I participate in LocationTech. >>> >>> I prefer the narrative of openness and trust vs the narrative of >>> mistrust and suspicion that sounds like bad politics. I hope that this >>> community that I choose to participate in is not such a political mess that >>> breeds that sort of selfish market share power plays, and instead it is a >>> community of people and organizations that take actions based on how they >>> can contribute to an overall good. >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > 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. >>>> >>>> Jody, >>>> >>>> I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter), >>>> this whole thread has not clarified almost nothing. >>>> >>>> As much as I appreciate (and carefully read through) all your inputs, >>>> that summary leaves me with even more questions. >>>> >>>> And, BTW, I agree with you about the FAQ, it also reads naive and silly >>>> (e.g. comparing Apache vs Mozilla, two different scopes, to >>>> LocationTech vs OSGeo, >>>> two with clear overlap). >>>> >>>> Putting all the emotional cream whipped so far aside and objectively, >>>> clearly, that it is all about potential, capacity and market share. >>>> >>>> OSGeo has proved its potential, it is capable to paddle its own canoe >>>> for a decade or more, >>>> via large self-organized community and successful projects. >>>> >>>> LocationTech is a fairly new player with huge & rich organization >>>> behind, >>>> that has to prove it's capable to secure market share, and its position. >>>> Otherwise, the parent organization will simply shut it down as any >>>> failed project. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> -- >>>> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > -- -- Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss