Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

> I think you forgot "economic discrimination"!
>
> For me, whether I would be able to pay for a membership or not, it makes
> it a very easy decision, where I want to contribute my volunteer time for.
>
> Sorry, if this slightly moved the thread into a different direction.
> I just wanted to agree with Andrea, that LT doesn't have the same goals in
> some way: it clearly focuses on the economic strong members of
> the organization.
>

Just a personal note, I have not been held back by operating as committer
representing the uDig project. Specifically I do not represent any of the
member organizations when volunteering with LocationTech.

Both OSGeo and LocationTech provides their own challenges :)
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

I should probably read the rest of the email for context, a few personal
responses inline.

> Still i don't understand why LocationTech is pressing so much for
> collaborating with osgeo, or share events at least.
> I've never see this from ogc, apache, ICA or any other organization which
> has his own habitat.
>
This gets back to my point on doing a better (personal) job on
communication. I have not done the best job highlighting what LocationTech
is up to (not sure who reads blogs anymore).

LocationTech promotes open source spatial wherever it can. In 2014 I
participated in an post OGC meetup (Calgary), the Location Intellegence
conference (Washington) and the Locate conference (Canberra). In 2015 I
took part in more events including the Philadelphia code sprint.  Others
have attended GeoInt etc.. In addition LocationTech does have its own
conference (LocationTech Tour).

Specifically FOSS4G is not singled out as a conference, promoting open
source spatial software happens at a number of events (to a number of
audiences) world wide.

aside: Back when OSGeo was founded it also regularly attended conference as
an outreach activity). At the time I always remember checking which sponsor
were at an event and if we could borrow booth space.

> When you create LT you decided to build up your way from scratch, so why
> not just follow your paths and let the collaboration happens gradually and
> based on mutually agreed aims and mutual benefit?
>
I believe this is happening, this is partly why I relaxed on writing blog
posts. I think the foss4g bids with LocationTech as a PCO was part of that
natural collaboration.

> Why don't you draft a MOU to the osgeo community and board to understand
> your suggested area of collaboration so that it could be discussed or voted?
>
I think this was done, provided the link

earlier.  OSGeo is listed as a guest member of LocationTech, invited to
steering committee meetings (where marketing and outreach discussion is
decided on).

> This is to me the key aspect without with there could not be any "official
> work together".
>
See above, the official line of communication is open - the OSGeo
representative has not been present as of late. I have personally bridged
the hap on a few occasions (but am limited in my volunteer activities).

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

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  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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

On 12 November 2015 at 15:35, Andrea Ross  wrote:
>
> The FAQ produced recently
> 
> does a pretty good job covering the situation.
>

This FAQ makes me a bit sad (if it needs to be written then we have a gulf
of communication to close) and also it comes across as defensive.

I am quite proud of both the LocationTech community and the OSGeo community
and the work that has been done. The above FAQ does not reflect that pride.

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

Jody,

>
> I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter), this
> whole thread has not clarified almost nothing.
>

Agreed, email is tough for communication, and this conversation has started
by looking for differences rather than look at how things are.

As much as I appreciate (and carefully read through) all your inputs, that
> summary leaves me with even more questions.
>

I would happy to have a hangout with you if that would help. It may help me
sort out how to communicate on this subject :)

Putting all the emotional cream whipped so far aside and objectively,
> clearly, that it is all about potential, capacity and market share.
>

I thought it was more about the scope of OSGeo being clarified. Something
Cameron is consistently asking board members to provide in the form a
vision statement or similar.


> 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.
>

This to me is not a given - there is certainly more for OSGeo to do (and a
key reason I am taking part).  The gap on foss4g organization is
well-known, but not of interest to me. I am more focused on projects - and
am interested in gvSig having their own association (and QGIS forming their
own association).  Specifically I am not interested in forming an
association for GeoServer and would like to ask OSGeo to take on this role.

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.
>

A valid concern, but I think three years in LocationTech has moved passed
the experiment  stage (I believe it was considered a success almost from
day one). The budget for each working group is dictated by the members
involved, much as OSGeo budget is dictated by our sponsors.
--
Jody
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Rob Emanuele]

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  wrote:

> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett  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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed OSGeo Vision

[Suchith Anand]

Thank you Jeff for your dedication and efforts for OSGeo and taking time to put 
together your ideas for the proposed OSGeo vision and thanks to Cameron for 
excellent comments/suggestions to help refine this.

This proposed OSGeo vision ideas are a good start to discuss and brainstorm 
ideas of how we can expand OSGeo for the future. I suggest that this should be 
something the OSGeo Board should also look into and input.

Best wishes,

Suchith


From: Discuss [discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Cameron Shorter 
[cameron.shor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:20 AM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed OSGeo Vision

Hi Jeff,
I've renamed this email thread to "Proposed OSGeo Vision", and have
selected out your text specifically related the Vision.

I'm re-reading the text more slowly on my second pass.
Firstly, I think you have done a great first pass. Please consider my
comments as suggested refinements.

In general:
I question the emphasis on face-to-face meetings over email.
I agree that face-to-face meetings can be very effective and empowering
for the people within the room, however it comes at a cost.
1. Only the people in the room are empowered. This lends itself well to
a hierarchical command-and-control power structure. Decisions are made
by the powerful, while the masses are disenfranchised.
2. For a global organisation, it is expensive to fly everyone into one
location.
3. For a low-capital organisation (like OSGeo), it is difficult to
justify travel expenses over many other valuable low cost and effective
options.
4. Decentralised communication is very effective at attracting large and
active communities.

Open Source communities thrive on leaderless organisation, email lists,
IRC channels, and other cheap communication channels. (I blogged on this
decades ago when the internet was just starting to become main stream [1]).

[1]
http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com.au/2000/10/understanding-and-motivating-activists.html

On 16/11/2015 6:13 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
> 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.

I suggest avoiding time based terms (next 5 to 10 years) for a vision
statement. A vision statement might be getting read in 5 years time, and
unless you know when the statement was written, you don't have a
framework for knowing if the timeframe is still valid.

I suggest for a vision statement, stay generic and don't specifically
name regions to focus on. State instead that OSGeo aims to give multiple
regions, including developing regions the opportunity of an
international spotlight.

How do you plan to give regions a spotlight? This should be explained at
least in general terms. Will OSGeo be encouraging FOSS4G to be held in
developing regions? This should have some practical ideas which can be
implemented and questioned to see if it is technically achievable.

>
> Local Chapters
> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Mateusz Loskot]

On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett  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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

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  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 
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett 
>> 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Michael Smith]

I believe that narrative B best fits what I know about LocationTech and
their interactions with OSGeo.

Note that this is my personal opinion.


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org


From:  Discuss  on behalf of Rob Emanuele

Date:  Monday, November 16, 2015 at 7:59 PM
To:  Mateusz Loskot 
Cc:  OSGeo Discussions 
Subject:  [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
Resent-From:  Michael Smith 

> 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  wrote:
>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett  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,

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Steven Feldman]

Andrea

Please don’t assume that the lack of response to your FAQ means that it is 
widely accepted. 

I think that you need to recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the 
various threads (whether you consider them valid or not)  and seek to address 
them through discussions which are almost certainly best held between the 
officers of LT and OSGeo not via an email list. 

The voting period for 2017 is nearly over, once the result has been announced 
let’s try to move forward in a cooperative manner.
__
Steven


> 
> 
> 
> From: Andrea Ross >
> Date: 15 November 2015 at 17:35:37 GMT
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org 
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Again, you make statements like you have below about me/LocationTech smoothly 
> courting/calculated/etc going after OSGeo's only source of revenue. Perhaps 
> you would like to present your evidence for making such negative statements? 
> 
> Bear in mind that the ample evidence to the contrary is public. Dave & Robert 
> have told their stories about how & why they LocationTech as a conference 
> organizer for their 2017 bids. Michael Terner shared his story too. There was 
> nothing untoward involved, and everything has been talked about publicly.
> 
> The budget details for those bids are public too and as generous as a 
> conservative budget allows. The payment is very much in line with the best 
> payments ever received from a FOSS4G, and OSGeo is not on the hook for a loss 
> should one occur.
> 
> Making such assertions with no evidence to back them up, against much 
> evidence to the contrary is unfounded and very unprofessional.
> 
> The FAQ we published 
> 
>  publicly makes the motives very clear. People like myself, Dave McIlhagga, 
> Jody Garnett, and many others have been deeply involved in OSGeo & FOSS4G 
> since the beginning in many capacities. (so were the Founders of LocationTech 
> for what that's worth) All of what we have done is public record. We never 
> left the community. We care about FOSS4G and care how it is run. We are 
> valued members of the FOSS4G & OSGeo communities, have equal right to 
> participate, and not the invading outsiders you are attempting to portray us 
> as.
> 
> Again, you imply something untoward regarding why LocationTech was founded 
> and exists. It was created & exists to fill a gap. And 3 years on it is doing 
> a pretty good job of that. As I have said, I am not aware of any harm to 
> OSGeo that has come from LocationTech. There was much goodness specified 
> clearly in the FAQ stating plainly how LocationTech has helped OSGeo. You are 
> welcome to share your evidence to the contrary.
> 
> As just one more example we didn't put in the FAQ, after a  very successful 
> FOSS4G NA 2015, $6K USD was paid to OSGeo from LocationTech to help support 
> it. The money was provided with no strings attached for OSGeo to spend how it 
> see's fit.
> 
> Collaboration happens between OSGeo & LocationTech every day without fuss. 
> People shuffle back and forth across the imaginary border without even 
> thinking about it. It is one ecosystem.
> 
> I wish you'd see & acknowledge the goodness and positive things from 
> LocationTech. At the very least, without any evidence of anything negative, 
> you should really stop.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> On 13/11/15 14:24, 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[andrea antonello]

Thanks for this Steven,

> Please don’t assume that the lack of response to your FAQ means that it is
> widely accepted.
>
> I think that you need to recognise the concerns that have been expressed in
> the various threads (whether you consider them valid or not)  and seek to
> address them through discussions which are almost certainly best held
> between the officers of LT and OSGeo not via an email list.
>
> The voting period for 2017 is nearly over, once the result has been
> announced let’s try to move forward in a cooperative manner.

I totally agree with this.

To be honest I had my hands itching at least 100 times during this
discussion and I am so glad I didn't write out of passion.
Also, the reason why I didn't enter the discussion, is that many
already had expressed at least partially what I was thinking (mostly
Massimiliano and Jeff).

But I honestly do not see how a discussion around such a complex topic
can be solved on a mailinglist.

I am voting for someone to represent me at a certain level and I find
that this discussion should be brought to a different level than a
public discussion mailinglist, in which some people might bump in
pushed by passion/anger.

Given how some people/organizations have felt offended in the thread,
I think this is the moment in which this should be taken to the
"officers of LT and OSGeo", as Steven wisely proposes.

All the best,
Andrea






> __
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Andrea Ross 
> Date: 15 November 2015 at 17:35:37 GMT
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Again, you make statements like you have below about me/LocationTech
> smoothly courting/calculated/etc going after OSGeo's only source of revenue.
> Perhaps you would like to present your evidence for making such negative
> statements?
>
> Bear in mind that the ample evidence to the contrary is public. Dave &
> Robert have told their stories about how & why they LocationTech as a
> conference organizer for their 2017 bids. Michael Terner shared his story
> too. There was nothing untoward involved, and everything has been talked
> about publicly.
>
> The budget details for those bids are public too and as generous as a
> conservative budget allows. The payment is very much in line with the best
> payments ever received from a FOSS4G, and OSGeo is not on the hook for a
> loss should one occur.
>
> Making such assertions with no evidence to back them up, against much
> evidence to the contrary is unfounded and very unprofessional.
>
> The FAQ we published publicly makes the motives very clear. People like
> myself, Dave McIlhagga, Jody Garnett, and many others have been deeply
> involved in OSGeo & FOSS4G since the beginning in many capacities. (so were
> the Founders of LocationTech for what that's worth) All of what we have done
> is public record. We never left the community. We care about FOSS4G and care
> how it is run. We are valued members of the FOSS4G & OSGeo communities, have
> equal right to participate, and not the invading outsiders you are
> attempting to portray us as.
>
>
> Again, you imply something untoward regarding why LocationTech was founded
> and exists. It was created & exists to fill a gap. And 3 years on it is
> doing a pretty good job of that. As I have said, I am not aware of any harm
> to OSGeo that has come from LocationTech. There was much goodness specified
> clearly in the FAQ stating plainly how LocationTech has helped OSGeo. You
> are welcome to share your evidence to the contrary.
>
> As just one more example we didn't put in the FAQ, after a  very successful
> FOSS4G NA 2015, $6K USD was paid to OSGeo from LocationTech to help support
> it. The money was provided with no strings attached for OSGeo to spend how
> it see's fit.
>
> Collaboration happens between OSGeo & LocationTech every day without fuss.
> People shuffle back and forth across the imaginary border without even
> thinking about it. It is one ecosystem.
>
> I wish you'd see & acknowledge the goodness and positive things from
> LocationTech. At the very least, without any evidence of anything negative,
> you should really stop.
>
> Andrea
>
> On 13/11/15 14:24, 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Dirk Frigne]

Andrea,

> Your email is incorrect and very misleading unfortunately.

Is to easy as a statement to reply Daniel's mail[1], but I don't agree
as I don't see your point. I think Daniel is right in his analysis, and
so is his mail.

OSGeo is all about individual members, and there are no legal entities
represented at the board. Sponsors are welcomed and can promote their
activities on events like FOSS4G, but are not part of the board, and
take no part in the decision making process.
One of the strong differentiating elements in the vision of OSGeo is the
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." - (from Vision of OSGeo - as stated by
Jeff [2])


I think Jeff has expressed it very well: OSGeo is all about community.

LT is all (IMHO) about adopting open source for Geo in the software
industry.

As OSGeo is promoting open source, this is a good initiative, and is
supportered by OSGeo, but OSGeo and LT are 2 different organisations and
this should stay so.

The difference between a community driven organisation and LT: once
business is involved, we talk about differences, competition, being
smarter better, more efficient than others. So, to accomplish this, LT
does not accept all open source, only those with a certain license
model. (see [3]) And this is not bad, nor good, but certainly not OSGeo.
And it is fine that key persons of OSGeo are taking the initiative to
found LT or Geo4All or whatever new initiative promoting OSS. But that
does not make that new initiative OSGeo.

I am sure other industry initiatives will emerge with other perspectives
and views. And they will be good initiatives too, and OSGeo will support
them hopefully also, because OSGeo is not about industry or education or
business or users, OSGeo is IMHO the drive behind the whole Geo
ecosystem. OSGeo is the OSGeo community.

my 2c

Dirk

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@lists.osgeo.org/msg13501.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@lists.osgeo.org/msg13488.html
[3] https://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@lists.osgeo.org/msg13451.html


On 16-11-15 01:35, Andrea Ross wrote:
> On 15/11/15 23:20, Daniel Kastl wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>
>>> People can and do participate in both OSGeo & LocationTech all the
>>> time.  This is a good thing. It absolutely isn't a zero sum
>>> scenario. The mutually reinforce each other rather than detract
>>> from one another.
>>>
>> I think there is a big difference in how the participation is organized:
>> With OSGeo you become a member like this: http://www.osgeo.org/Membershi
>> p
>> And with LT it works like this:
>> https://www.locationtech.org/content/become-member and details in
>> here: https://www.locationtech.org/charter
>>
>> You could now argue, that participation is not membership. That's right.
>> But then look at who you participate for in case of LT :
>> https://www.locationtech.org/members
>>
>> There is a big "Strategic" at the topic, so to me this means, that
>> they have a lot to say. And there is a guest sections, which it likely
>> the opposite.
>>
>> I don't need to explain, who paid their dollars to become a strategic
>> member. For them the annual fee is nothing in their overall budget.
>>
>> The funny thing is, that both (OSGeo and LT) have a "Nondiscrimination
>> Statement" on their website:
>>
>> OSGeo: "The Foundation is open to all members of the geospatial
>> community. We do not discriminate based on age, gender, race,
>> nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or disability."
>>
>> LT: "We are committed to making participation in the LocationTech
>> community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of
>> level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
>> orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race,
>> ethnicity, age, religion or analogous grounds."
>>
>> I think you forgot "economic discrimination"!
>>
>> For me, whether I would be able to pay for a membership or not, it
>> makes it a very easy decision, where I want to contribute my volunteer
>> time for.
>>
>> Sorry, if this slightly moved the thread into a different direction. I
>> just wanted to agree with Andrea, that LT doesn't have the same goals
>> in some way: it clearly focuses on the economic strong members of the
>> organization.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>> PS: you will also recognize from the members, that LT is not a diverse
>> organization in terms nationalities. Well, you could argue, that IBM,
>> Oracle and Google are operating globally ;-)
>>
>>
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Your email is incorrect and very misleading unfortunately. If you don't
> mind some 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo4W orphaned?

[Rashad M]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Jürgen E.  wrote:

> Hi Helmut,
>
> On Sat, 14. Nov 2015 at 23:18:36 +0100, Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote:
> > Is OSGeo4W orphaned?
>
> No.   But it's mostly only getting updates on GRASS (but only 32bit) and
> QGIS.
> Dependencies are usually only updated if required.  And I'm not sure if
> everything in OSGeo4W is ready to work with GDAL 2 (IIRC OTB doesn't
> support
> GDAL 2 yet).
>
> Hi Jürgen,

FYI,
OTB does support GDAL 2.0 now (trunk). But it also maintains compatibility
with GDAL 1.x versions. Next release( probably before christmas) can depend
on GDAL 2.0.


> Jürgen
>
> --
> Jürgen E. Fischer   norBIT GmbH Tel.
> +49-4931-918175-31
> Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13  Fax.
> +49-4931-918175-50
> Software Engineer   D-26506 Norden
> http://www.norbit.de
> QGIS release manager (PSC)  GermanyIRC: jef on FreeNode
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Regards,
   Rashad
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed OSGeo Vision

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Jeff,
I've renamed this email thread to "Proposed OSGeo Vision", and have 
selected out your text specifically related the Vision.


I'm re-reading the text more slowly on my second pass.
Firstly, I think you have done a great first pass. Please consider my 
comments as suggested refinements.


In general:
I question the emphasis on face-to-face meetings over email.
I agree that face-to-face meetings can be very effective and empowering 
for the people within the room, however it comes at a cost.
1. Only the people in the room are empowered. This lends itself well to 
a hierarchical command-and-control power structure. Decisions are made 
by the powerful, while the masses are disenfranchised.
2. For a global organisation, it is expensive to fly everyone into one 
location.
3. For a low-capital organisation (like OSGeo), it is difficult to 
justify travel expenses over many other valuable low cost and effective 
options.
4. Decentralised communication is very effective at attracting large and 
active communities.


Open Source communities thrive on leaderless organisation, email lists, 
IRC channels, and other cheap communication channels. (I blogged on this 
decades ago when the internet was just starting to become main stream [1]).


[1] 
http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com.au/2000/10/understanding-and-motivating-activists.html


On 16/11/2015 6:13 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:


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."
"group" terms. Ie, it should not be "MY vision" any more, but rather 
"The OSGeo Vision">


encourage ideas from everyone, we encourage supportive communities, ...

We don't accept discrimination, or people who promote discrimination.>




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.


I suggest avoiding time based terms (next 5 to 10 years) for a vision 
statement. A vision statement might be getting read in 5 years time, and 
unless you know when the statement was written, you don't have a 
framework for knowing if the timeframe is still valid.


I suggest for a vision statement, stay generic and don't specifically 
name regions to focus on. State instead that OSGeo aims to give multiple 
regions, including developing regions the opportunity of an 
international spotlight.


How do you plan to give regions a spotlight? This should be explained at 
least in general terms. Will OSGeo be encouraging FOSS4G to be held in 
developing regions? This should have some practical ideas which can be 
implemented and questioned to see if it is technically achievable.




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! :)

Suggest revisit "All of the fun happens locally". "Fun" can happen anywhere.
Who is going to help the local chapters?
With what resources?
How do the local 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Massimiliano Cannata]

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"  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  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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett 
>>> wrote:
>>> > 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

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"  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  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