Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Cameron Shorter]

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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

A few comments inline, the OSGeo board has a face to face meeting coming up
(so until that time take my comments here as my viewpoint).

On 12 November 2015 at 20:04, 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.
>

My concern is that OSGeo is relying on FOSS4G its major source of income,
thus is my interest in revising the sponsorship program.  My concern is
this places a lot of pressure on the event and the local organizing
committee(s). I would like to reduce that pressure and preserve FOSS4G as a
tool for advocacy. There was a impassioned lightening talk at foss4g this
year reminding everyone that this game is about freedom.

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).
>

I was involved in the formation of LocationTech. In part as one of my
projects, uDig, is not in position to meet the strict requirements of OSGeo
incubation.


> 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.
>

That is interesting, I disagreed with you at the time but acknowledge the
success realized by OSGeo. I would like to find a middle ground (as
outlined above) in order to take pressure off our outreach events and our
volunteers.

Jeff, Venka, Jody and others on the board, what is your vision for OSGeo's
> future direction
>

This was outlined during the election process (it amounts to projects,
projects, projects).
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015_Candidate_Manifestos#Jody_Garnett


> and in particular, what is your vision for a future relationship with
> Location Tech?
>

I will quote one line from the above wiki page: "OSGeo has agreements (with
OGC and LocationTech) and I would like to ensure we take advantage of these
opportunities."

I may as well link to my more recent talk (https://vimeo.com/142989259) as
I have learned a bit since foss4gna.

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?
>

I will defer on commenting on focus and goals until after the face to face
meeting.

If there is a theme to the proceedings I would prefer both organizations
look outward - we have so much work ahead of us (a lot of good to do in the
world).

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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Thanks Jeff or this mail. It explains a lot to me and confirms my vision of
the situation.
As a board member i suggest not to have any official relationship with
LocationTech untill the f2f board meeting. There we could discuss a lot of
topics and come out with official positions and view.

Maxi
Il 12/Nov/2015 21:58, "Jeff McKenna"  ha
scritto:

> 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 

[OSGeo-Discuss] MapIgniter Version 2

[Marco Afonso]

Hi all,

This is to announce the "alpha" version of the new MapIgniter 2 based on
Laravel 5.1, OpenLayers 3 and Bootstrap 3.

MapIgniter2 is an Open Source Web Mapping platform.

https://github.com/taviroquai/mapigniter2

*Main Features *


   1. Multiple maps and layers
   2. Supported data sorces: Bing, OSM, WMS, WFS, GPX, KML, Postgis,
   GeoJSON and Shapefile
   3. Create your own maps
   4. Default map layout includes a layer switche, navigation tools and
   search
   5. Vetor features styling


Take a look at the temporary demo: http://taviroquai.com/mapigniter2/public/
Login to backoffice with
u: ad...@isp.com
p: admin

You are all invited to participate, test and submit issues on GitHub. :)

Cheers!

-- 
Best Regards,
Marco Afonso
http://goo.gl/ZDtQjm
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

>
> 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.
>

I also fear that my only real skill as a community leader is being wrong in
public before anyone else can get there :)

Last year (was it last year already) Paul provided a list of possible
conference planning organizations, and much of our current discussion was
played out on this email list. My understanding (forgive me for not paying
attention) was that OSGeo did not pick a conference planning organization.
Leaving (or recommending) each LOC to consider this option for themselves.

I like LocationTech approaching each LOC as working with a conference
planning organization should reduce risk and stress. Do you happen to know
if each one of the bids includes a conference planning organization?

I do not think LocationTech has changed between 2013 and now - although I
am pleased to see more projects and organizations join.  I do not think it
as simple as both OSGeo and LocationTech playing in the same pond, right
now each organization is set up to support different kinds of projects. The
fact that both parties share a common goal of promoting open source spatial
technologies simply provides common ground.
--
Jody Garnett
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jeff McKenna]

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 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Forrester Interview Request: Spatial Insights Analytics Report

[Miller, Emily]

Hi all,

My name is Emily Miller and I work at Forrester Research alongside principal
analyst, James McCormick, and researcher, Rowan Curran. At the moment, we
are conducting research for a new Forrester report titled, "Spatial
Insights Power Actions Throughout The Customer Journey." This report will
discuss the opportunities, use-cases, and practices for application
developers/customer
insights professionals must consider when supporting applications,
analysis, and business processes with spatial data and context.

We are looking to set up an interview to discuss your viewpoint on this
concept and how you are dealing with this problem today. I've attached the
premise document which outlines the topic of the
report and provides some sample questions we would like to ask during the
interview. Please let me know if you or a colleague would be
interested/available
for a 30-minute phone call on this topic.

If so, kindly take a look at Rowan's calendar availability below to book
a time! http://meetme.so/Rowan_Curran_A

If you are willing to participate but none of the sessions on Rowan's calendar
work for you, please let me know and I will work with you to schedule a
time/date that does.

Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Thank you so much,

Emily

-- 


*FORRESTERChallenge thinking. Lead change.*



*Emily MillerResearch Associate, Serving Customer Insights
Professionalsdirect +1 617.613.5870  | emil...@forrester.com
*


Forrester Research, Inc.
Forrester.com  | C 
ommunities | Bl ogs |
Twitte r  |
Link ed
I
n | Fac
eb ook | Goo
gl
e+

60 Acorn Park Drive, Cambridge, MA 02140 United States


Vendor Interview Premise Document.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Seoul videos are available on the web!

[Jody Garnett]

Thank you very much, this is a wonderful resource.

--
Jody Garnett

On 10 November 2015 at 17:14, Sanghee Shin  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> FYI, all the videos of FOSS4G Seoul are now available on the web.
> https://vimeo.com/album/3605087  This might not be possible without great
> contribution from Ms. Seoin Kim. Many thanks to Seoin! It took more than we
> expected due to some technical problems in the videos. Anyway please enjoy
> it!
>
> And as you know all the presentation files are linked at the conference
> program.
> https://www.meci.co.kr/societyevent/FOSS4G2015/program/program_1.asp?sMenu=pro1
>
> Seoul team will link videos to conference program as well soon.
>
> Best regards,
>
> 신상희
> ---
> Shin, Sanghee
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> http://www.gaia3d.com
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

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 
 
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 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jody Garnett]

I have not done the best at communicating lately, here is a write up from a
fun event held last month in victoria -
http://www.how2map.com/2015/10/locationtech-tour-2015.html

A really positive mix of OSGeo and LocationTech projects. In many cases
this event was the first introduction to open source for those attending -
making this an excellent outreach opportunity.

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).

--
Jody Garnett
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Sandro Santilli]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:29:59PM +, Jody Garnett wrote:

> I may as well link to my more recent talk (https://vimeo.com/142989259) as

Interesting talk Jody, thank you !

One thing it wasn't clear to me (I might have dreamt it):
did you say that LocationTech only accept non-copylefted projects
in the foundation ? I think it came out by the very end
of the talk, in response to a question from Luca Delucchi (~30:00)

I tried browsing the locationtech.org website but found no mention
of this limitation.

It's confusing, because you early mentioned that projects can be
in both foundations while if that's confirmed projects like PostGIS,
GRASS or QGIS (to name a few) could _not_ be.

It is interesting that they have dedicated IP stuff, would come to
think the actual goal is to help companies ride the "Open Source" tide
(still big, and still growing) w/out risk of getting wet...

--strk; 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jeff McKenna]

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


--
Jeff McKenna
President, OSGeo
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna








___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for this explanation. I can tell you that talking with you has 
helped, and also that just now the OSGeo Board has agreed to talk about 
building this LocationTech relationship, at our next face-to-face 
meeting at the end of January. This is excellent news. These 
relationships take time to formalize.


As for commercial-friendliness, I can tell you that this also plays a 
big part in OSGeo (but this isn't in our main tagline).  This is 
something that the new OSGeo Board will review I'm sure.  I know that 
there is talk of formal structure being created inside the OSGeo 
foundation, to focus on these business interests (several members of 
various OSGeo local chapters in Europe are speaking of this possibility).


I'm sure there were good reasons to create another foundation with the 
exact same goals.  However the "conflict of interest" (to use the term 
used on a different list about this) of the one foundation calculating a 
way to smoothly get onto our one event's table, these 2 foundations with 
the same goal sort of, collide, over OSGeo's yearly event.  That is 
definitely tricky (hence all these emails, private emails, and lack of 
sleep for me lately).


However for now I will focus on today's positives of the OSGeo Board 
looking to define the relationship with LocationTech, slowly.


Talk soon,

-jeff



On 2015-11-12 12:53 PM, 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
>
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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Rob Emanuele]

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). 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  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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jody Garnett]

>
> 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.


This already is the case, the locationtech tour is the "big conference". In
this case it is a series of small events (ranging from 30 people to 200
people depending on the city).

As mentioned above OSGeo projects were the headline for the event, far in
excess of 90 mins :)
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Hi Jody,

On 2015/11/12 20:01, 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).


Can you clarify what "our" in your e-mail points to?
I cannot understand "*our* behaviour as a community" and
"first time organizer that could use *our* support.

Venka
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jeff McKenna]

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).
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
>
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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jody Garnett]

> Thanks for listening, and thank you Jody for bringing this topic to the
> public lists.
>

After your long email I am not sure I understand what is going on, my main
concern was that we be welcoming and collaborative (the same foundation we
build open source on).

Jody
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Rob Emanuele]

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> 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'
>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jody Garnett]

Certainly.

Last year Rob (who is new to our open source community) volunteered to
chair foss4gna.

I think it is amazing when we have volunteers, especially when they are new
to the community. Indeed my first response is to be careful that in their
enthusiasm a new volunteer does not take on too much and burn out. Based on
my experience I feared setting up a conference was going to qualify as too
much.

I had hoped we would be welcoming, and concerned for his welfare when faced
with such a large task. There were some questions about what was going on,
who LocationTech was, and so forth.

Our strength at OSGeo is being a people powered organization. I had hoped
we would look out for the people (such as Rob) and was embarrassed when we
missed that mark.

Sorry if that is a bit harsh, expressing personal feeling etc...
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 12 November 2015 at 15:46, Venkatesh Raghavan <
ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hi Jody,
>
> On 2015/11/12 20:01, 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).
>>
>
> Can you clarify what "our" in your e-mail points to?
> I cannot understand "*our* behaviour as a community" and
> "first time organizer that could use *our* support.
>
> Venka
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fun Event in Victoria with mix of OSGeo/LocationTech projects

[Jody Garnett]

I am glad this thread is encouraging communication.

As stated at the start I would like to do a better job of communication on
this one. I guess I can start by saying the two organizations have a much
stronger relationship than a Memorandum of Understanding. A MoU is often
the first stage of a formal contract, in this case the formal relationship
has been realized.

See http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-10-11

The result of this is that OSGeo is a member of LocationTech (see the list
of members here ). And has provided a
representative to the steering committee meetings and speak on behalf of
OSGeo.

(Is this kind of background useful - I feel I am being painfully
obvious/annoying on this one)
--
Jody Garnett

On 12 November 2015 at 11:01, Jody Garnett  wrote:

> I have not done the best at communicating lately, here is a write up from
> a fun event held last month in victoria -
> http://www.how2map.com/2015/10/locationtech-tour-2015.html
>
> A really positive mix of OSGeo and LocationTech projects. In many cases
> this event was the first introduction to open source for those attending -
> making this an excellent outreach opportunity.
>
> 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).
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss