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] 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] 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 <andrea.r...@eclipse.org <mailto:andrea.r...@eclipse.org>>
> Date: 15 November 2015 at 17:35:37 GMT
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit>
>  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, he

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 <andrea.r...@eclipse.org>
> 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 1,0

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] 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Cameron,

Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this 
topic openly here, as others would rather send me strong private 
messages questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that many 
cannot be open on this topic for various reasons.


Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very 
rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not 
muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation 
whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all 
year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and 
"obstructive", then yes you are fully right.


Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a 
big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of 
LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first 
subscribers to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside 
their #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from new 
LocationTech community members (technical readers will find it 
interesting to join their IRC channel now on freenode and see the first 
message that is displayed when entering their channel "LocationTech: 
location aware open source software friendly to commercialization.").  I 
have followed the development of that organization right from the 
beginning, where they smartly filled a void by aiming at the 
business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial (of course, recently 
they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my sanity, that this 
was false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused instead on the 
same goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT and press 
release, and you will see their early visions).  Which is why I asked 
now to hear the vision of LocationTech (I was not answered, but someone 
else pointed to an FAQ just made).  In any case, no I am not insane, I 
have always followed LocationTech closely.


I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly, 
and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested in 
Open Source.  In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and 
represent OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, 
including my health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow 
the OSGeo community.  In this event I can bet that I will speak 
personally to over 100 developers, students, decision makers, and 
researchers; I bet I will personally talk to over 20 businesses looking 
at OSGeo.  Those who know me well know that this is why I make those 
trips (I don't go for presentations etc.), it is that face to face 
representation that is so very important, especially in the long run.


As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to 
all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words 
you've used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first 
negative ones used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In 
the big theater room that is the community, there will always be those 
that disagree with me, and I value their opinion as well.


Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes.  New 
committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the 
scene and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form 
initially, and I am ok with that.  The core community members in the 
OSGeo foundation know that I support them in every way that I can.  I 
often am actively working 2 or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for 
that region, talking with those regions members, getting them to think 
of the possibilities, years before the release of the call for hosting. 
 To you and others it looks like I have no innovation, no new ideas, I 
don't work with community leaders, because you don't see me working 
behind the scenes for OSGeo.  I am ok with that.  You can keep going on 
in thinking this way of me, but I am very proud of what I do for OSGeo, 
what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.  Long-time members of OSGeo know 
how I have failed in several proposals to past OSGeo boards, and to this 
day those so-called "failures" are my most proud moments.  But yes, you 
can always argue that I am not innovative and do not help OSGeo.


I am also not wired to think of "money" first.  I follow my heart and I 
try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, always, 
even if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my career.  I do 
it, for the love of OSGeo.  I also realize that it is this fact, of how 
I am wired, that causes conflict with others (another example is my 
father, who constantly says I should go get a real job and earn the 
money I deserve, he sees me struggle financially and it drives him 
crazy).  Instead of money, my goal in life is to be happy and do well 
for society.  I feel OSGeo and its local chapters fits in perfectly with 
my own personal goals, and I give to OSGeo everything I can, 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

Dear Massimiliano,

Your opinion matters a great deal. I don't know if you realized: what 
you have suggested should be, is pretty much what is the case. Let me 
explain to hopefully show this is so.


This is all covered in the FAQ 
 
to try to make it clear & quick to read for any who are interested.


The people who put together the bids for Ottawa & Philadelphia did 
something positive and bid on hosting FOSS4G in their cities. As part of 
their bid, they very clearly stated that OSGeo would have the very best 
visibility it has ever had at any FOSS4G ever and a payment on par with 
the best ever without any downside risk. In that same sense that FOSS4G 
has ever been "hosted" or "organized" or whatever word preferred, by 
OSGeo, it would be the same, should those cities be selected.


The way the process works, the bid team select whom they wish to 
organize the logistics. And they reached out to LocationTech to hear 
what they could offer. Using Ottawa as an example (Dave McIlhagga, chair 
for Ottawa, shared all of this in public on the conf-dev list), after 
hearing the offer, they decided that they wanted LocationTech to help 
them organize the conference. For what it's worth, the other conference 
organizing firms who participated in the meeting & also heard what was 
being offered, and said openly, clearly, and unmistakably that they felt 
choosing LocationTech was the right choice.


Also covered in the FAQ, LocationTech does organize many events beyond 
FOSS4G. And, for what it's worth, OSGeo projects & initiatives have 
always been welcome at those events. The FAQ also details why there's 
interest in FOSS4G. It is my hope that you & others find it all quite 
reasonable.


Kind regards,

Andrea

On 15/11/15 20:05, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:


Andrea
Nevertheless in my simple and neligible opinion and understanding 
OSGeo never wanted to organize any apache event.


If valuable OSGeo members want to host and organize foss4g they can 
certainly do in their name or in the name of their local chapters 
leaving out LocationTech from the bussines. If LT want to be at the 
osgeo event they can send proposal and see if they will be accepted 
and then they are always welcome as a sponsor.


If we can see that "osgeo" and LT are "sister" organizations then LT 
could also have a free both and be listed as partner along with other 
organizations.


Otherwayaround why LT does not organize its own event and then let it 
be organized by osgeo?


Regards
Massimiliano

Il 15/Nov/2015 18:48, "Andrea Ross" > ha scritto:


On 13/11/15 15:42, Mateusz Loskot wrote:

On 13 November 2015 at 14:24, Jeff McKenna
> wrote:

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".

Bang!

Jeff, thank you.

Best regards,


Jeff, Mateusz

I have answered this in my other email but I'll repeat here too in
case it's helpful. LocationTech was founded, by many of the same
founders and champions of OSGeo, to fill a gap. It has done a
pretty good job of this. A bunch of what it does, isn't getting
done elsewhere and is needed. None of this was intended to harm
OSGeo in any way, and so far as I can see, hasn't even after 3
years. Feel free to provide any evidence you can offer to the
contrary.

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.

Apache existed before OSGeo so the same argument could be used
there. While I can see how it plays to emotions, I'm not sure it's
a useful argument.

Andrea

___
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,

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 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Andrea
Nevertheless in my simple and neligible opinion and understanding OSGeo
never wanted to organize any apache event.

If valuable OSGeo members want to host and organize foss4g they can
certainly do in their name or in the name of their local chapters leaving
out LocationTech from the bussines. If LT want to be at the osgeo event
they can send proposal and see if they will be accepted and then they are
always welcome as a sponsor.

If we can see that "osgeo" and LT are "sister" organizations then LT could
also have a free both and be listed as partner along with other
organizations.

Otherwayaround why LT does not organize its own event and then let it be
organized by osgeo?

Regards
Massimiliano
Il 15/Nov/2015 18:48, "Andrea Ross"  ha scritto:

> On 13/11/15 15:42, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>
>> On 13 November 2015 at 14:24, Jeff McKenna
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>> Bang!
>>
>> Jeff, thank you.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>
> Jeff, Mateusz
>
> I have answered this in my other email but I'll repeat here too in case
> it's helpful. LocationTech was founded, by many of the same founders and
> champions of OSGeo, to fill a gap. It has done a pretty good job of this. A
> bunch of what it does, isn't getting done elsewhere and is needed. None of
> this was intended to harm OSGeo in any way, and so far as I can see, hasn't
> even after 3 years. Feel free to provide any evidence you can offer to the
> contrary.
>
> 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.
>
> Apache existed before OSGeo so the same argument could be used there.
> While I can see how it plays to emotions, I'm not sure it's a useful
> argument.
>
> Andrea
>
> ___
> 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

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for articulating your vision. I anticipate it will be very useful 
in moving forward, and will help provide a basis from which the OSGeo 
community and board can contribute to and build into a collective 
vision, and then extend into a practical implementation of it.


Warm regards, Cameron

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

Hi Cameron,

Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this 
topic openly here, as others would rather send me strong private 
messages questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that 
many cannot be open on this topic for various reasons.


Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very 
rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not 
muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo 
foundation whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's 
only event all year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" 
and "obstructive", then yes you are fully right.


Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been 
a big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of 
LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first 
subscribers to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats 
inside their #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from 
new LocationTech community members (technical readers will find it 
interesting to join their IRC channel now on freenode and see the 
first message that is displayed when entering their channel 
"LocationTech: location aware open source software friendly to 
commercialization.").  I have followed the development of that 
organization right from the beginning, where they smartly filled a 
void by aiming at the business/commercial side of Open Source 
geospatial (of course, recently they publicly pointed out to me, even 
questioned my sanity, that this was false, I am dreaming, that they 
have always focused instead on the same goals as OSGeo, but readers, 
do a google search for LT and press release, and you will see their 
early visions).  Which is why I asked now to hear the vision of 
LocationTech (I was not answered, but someone else pointed to an FAQ 
just made).  In any case, no I am not insane, I have always followed 
LocationTech closely.


I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly, 
and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested 
in Open Source.  In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and 
represent OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, 
including my health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow 
the OSGeo community.  In this event I can bet that I will speak 
personally to over 100 developers, students, decision makers, and 
researchers; I bet I will personally talk to over 20 businesses 
looking at OSGeo. Those who know me well know that this is why I make 
those trips (I don't go for presentations etc.), it is that face to 
face representation that is so very important, especially in the long 
run.


As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to 
all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words 
you've used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first 
negative ones used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In 
the big theater room that is the community, there will always be those 
that disagree with me, and I value their opinion as well.


Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes. New 
committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the 
scene and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form 
initially, and I am ok with that.  The core community members in the 
OSGeo foundation know that I support them in every way that I can.  I 
often am actively working 2 or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for 
that region, talking with those regions members, getting them to think 
of the possibilities, years before the release of the call for 
hosting.  To you and others it looks like I have no innovation, no new 
ideas, I don't work with community leaders, because you don't see me 
working behind the scenes for OSGeo.  I am ok with that.  You can keep 
going on in thinking this way of me, but I am very proud of what I do 
for OSGeo, what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.  Long-time members 
of OSGeo know how I have failed in several proposals to past OSGeo 
boards, and to this day those so-called "failures" are my most proud 
moments.  But yes, you can always argue that I am not innovative and 
do not help OSGeo.


I am also not wired to think of "money" first.  I follow my heart and 
I try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, 
always, even if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my 
career.  I do it, for the love of OSGeo.  I also realize that it is 
this fact, of how I am wired, that causes conflict with others 
(another 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Andrea,

I have no doubt that you mean well.  I hope that maybe seeing my vision 
for OSGeo, will help explain myself.  I feel that OSGeo and LocationTech 
are in fact different, especially in their visions (which would likely 
be why LocationTech was formed initially, I imagine there was a good 
reason not to help OSGeo grow, not to dedicate that time to instead help 
change OSGeo for the better).  I realize that it is too late to question 
why we now have 2 foundations.  I would like to work together, but for 
OSGeo to have its own event, FOSS4G.  I would like to discuss 
LocationTech being more involved in the global FOSS4G, such as through 
sponsorship or special sessions.  I would like to discuss OSGeo bring 
more involved in LocationTech, and am open to your ideas how.


I hope taking all of today (it took me most of today to compile those 
words, which I made many mistakes in ha) helps you see more into my 
vision, and explains who I am and where I want to go.  I am very ok with 
people disagreeing with it.  I took a leadership training course for a 
year (in 2011), and this made me pull out my old Harvard Business 
journal print-outs ha, it was actually a good reason to review all of 
this.  I also know that a vision does not always work, and could be 
rejected by the OSGeo community at large.  I am, absolutely putting all 
of me on the line.


I am prepared for that as well.  Wow, isn't this fun? :)

Talk soon,

-jeff



On 2015-11-15 1:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Charles Schweik]

+1
Charlie Schweik


On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Venkatesh Raghavan <
ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Many thanks for the great job you are doing in
> representing OSGeo with selfless dedication
> and for sharing your vision with all of us.
>
> I wish you great fun and safe travel for representing OSGeo at
> the GISConf in Moscow [1] that is coming up this weekend.
>
> Best
>
> Venka
>
> [1] http://gisconf.ru/
>
> On 2015/11/16 4:13, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this topic
>> openly here, as others would rather send me strong private messages
>> questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that many cannot be
>> open on this topic for various reasons.
>>
>> Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very
>> rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not
>> muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation
>> whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all
>> year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and "obstructive",
>> then yes you are fully right.
>>
>> Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a
>> big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of
>> LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first subscribers
>> to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside their
>> #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from new LocationTech
>> community members (technical readers will find it interesting to join their
>> IRC channel now on freenode and see the first message that is displayed
>> when entering their channel "LocationTech: location aware open source
>> software friendly to commercialization.").  I have followed the development
>> of that organization right from the beginning, where they smartly filled a
>> void by aiming at the business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial
>> (of course, recently they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my
>> sanity, that this was false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused
>> instead on the same goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT
>> and press release, and you will see their early visions).  Which is why I
>> asked now to hear the vision of LocationTech (I was not answered, but
>> someone else pointed to an FAQ just made).  In any case, no I am not
>> insane, I have always followed LocationTech closely.
>>
>> I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly,
>> and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested in
>> Open Source.  In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and represent
>> OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, including my
>> health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow the OSGeo
>> community.  In this event I can bet that I will speak personally to over
>> 100 developers, students, decision makers, and researchers; I bet I will
>> personally talk to over 20 businesses looking at OSGeo. Those who know me
>> well know that this is why I make those trips (I don't go for presentations
>> etc.), it is that face to face representation that is so very important,
>> especially in the long run.
>>
>> As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to
>> all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words you've
>> used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first negative ones
>> used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In the big theater
>> room that is the community, there will always be those that disagree with
>> me, and I value their opinion as well.
>>
>> Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes. New
>> committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the scene
>> and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form initially, and
>> I am ok with that.  The core community members in the OSGeo foundation know
>> that I support them in every way that I can.  I often am actively working 2
>> or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for that region, talking with those
>> regions members, getting them to think of the possibilities, years before
>> the release of the call for hosting.  To you and others it looks like I
>> have no innovation, no new ideas, I don't work with community leaders,
>> because you don't see me working behind the scenes for OSGeo.  I am ok with
>> that.  You can keep going on in thinking this way of me, but I am very
>> proud of what I do for OSGeo, what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.
>> Long-time members of OSGeo know how I have failed in several proposals to
>> past OSGeo boards, and to this day those so-called "failures" are my most
>> proud moments.  But yes, you can always argue that I am not innovative and
>> do not help OSGeo.
>>
>> I am also not wired to think of "money" first.  I follow my heart and I
>> try 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Jeff,

Many thanks for the great job you are doing in
representing OSGeo with selfless dedication
and for sharing your vision with all of us.

I wish you great fun and safe travel for representing OSGeo at
the GISConf in Moscow [1] that is coming up this weekend.

Best

Venka

[1] http://gisconf.ru/

On 2015/11/16 4:13, Jeff McKenna wrote:

Hi Cameron,

Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this 
topic openly here, as others would rather send me strong private 
messages questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that 
many cannot be open on this topic for various reasons.


Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very 
rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not 
muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo 
foundation whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's 
only event all year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" 
and "obstructive", then yes you are fully right.


Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been 
a big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of 
LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first 
subscribers to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats 
inside their #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from 
new LocationTech community members (technical readers will find it 
interesting to join their IRC channel now on freenode and see the 
first message that is displayed when entering their channel 
"LocationTech: location aware open source software friendly to 
commercialization.").  I have followed the development of that 
organization right from the beginning, where they smartly filled a 
void by aiming at the business/commercial side of Open Source 
geospatial (of course, recently they publicly pointed out to me, even 
questioned my sanity, that this was false, I am dreaming, that they 
have always focused instead on the same goals as OSGeo, but readers, 
do a google search for LT and press release, and you will see their 
early visions).  Which is why I asked now to hear the vision of 
LocationTech (I was not answered, but someone else pointed to an FAQ 
just made).  In any case, no I am not insane, I have always followed 
LocationTech closely.


I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly, 
and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested 
in Open Source.  In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and 
represent OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold, 
including my health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow 
the OSGeo community.  In this event I can bet that I will speak 
personally to over 100 developers, students, decision makers, and 
researchers; I bet I will personally talk to over 20 businesses 
looking at OSGeo. Those who know me well know that this is why I make 
those trips (I don't go for presentations etc.), it is that face to 
face representation that is so very important, especially in the long 
run.


As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to 
all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words 
you've used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first 
negative ones used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In 
the big theater room that is the community, there will always be those 
that disagree with me, and I value their opinion as well.


Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes. New 
committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the 
scene and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form 
initially, and I am ok with that.  The core community members in the 
OSGeo foundation know that I support them in every way that I can.  I 
often am actively working 2 or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for 
that region, talking with those regions members, getting them to think 
of the possibilities, years before the release of the call for 
hosting.  To you and others it looks like I have no innovation, no new 
ideas, I don't work with community leaders, because you don't see me 
working behind the scenes for OSGeo.  I am ok with that.  You can keep 
going on in thinking this way of me, but I am very proud of what I do 
for OSGeo, what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.  Long-time members 
of OSGeo know how I have failed in several proposals to past OSGeo 
boards, and to this day those so-called "failures" are my most proud 
moments.  But yes, you can always argue that I am not innovative and 
do not help OSGeo.


I am also not wired to think of "money" first.  I follow my heart and 
I try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, 
always, even if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my 
career.  I do it, for the love of OSGeo.  I also realize that it is 
this fact, of how I am wired, that causes conflict with others 
(another example is 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jeff McKenna]

and Jo Cook, so I should never have written "first".  Now, I realize I 
am talking too much :) Phew.  Anyway I hope my vision is still clear. 
-jeff





On 2015-11-15 3:21 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:

Anne don't yell at me, I forgot to mention you, I should have stated
"This year's board has the most women ever", not first! :)

I am smiling.  Sorry Anne!

-jeff



On 2015-11-15 3:13 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:

Hi Cameron,

Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this
topic openly here, as others would rather send me strong private
messages questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that many
cannot be open on this topic for various reasons.

Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very
rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not
muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation
whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all
year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and
"obstructive", then yes you are fully right.

Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a
big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of
LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first
subscribers to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside
their #locationtech IRC channel, even answering questions from new
LocationTech community members (technical readers will find it
interesting to join their IRC channel now on freenode and see the first
message that is displayed when entering their channel "LocationTech:
location aware open source software friendly to commercialization.").  I
have followed the development of that organization right from the
beginning, where they smartly filled a void by aiming at the
business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial (of course, recently
they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my sanity, that this
was false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused instead on the
same goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT and press
release, and you will see their early visions).  Which is why I asked
now to hear the vision of LocationTech (I was not answered, but someone
else pointed to an FAQ just made).  In any case, no I am not insane, I
have always followed LocationTech closely.

I do travel to many OSGeo local chapters around the world, constantly,
and especially to developing areas that are just becoming interested in
Open Source.  In a few days I will again take 3 more planes and
represent OSGeo at a growing community, again putting life on hold,
including my health, my money, and my life in general, to go help grow
the OSGeo community.  In this event I can bet that I will speak
personally to over 100 developers, students, decision makers, and
researchers; I bet I will personally talk to over 20 businesses looking
at OSGeo.  Those who know me well know that this is why I make those
trips (I don't go for presentations etc.), it is that face to face
representation that is so very important, especially in the long run.

As the leader of the OSGeo foundation, part of my role is to listen to
all of the criticism about me; and I realize that the negative words
you've used about me here for everyone to read, are not the first
negative ones used at me in years past, nor will they be the last. In
the big theater room that is the community, there will always be those
that disagree with me, and I value their opinion as well.

Few in this community see me being so involved behind the scenes.  New
committees, new MoUs, FOSS4G local committees, all just pop up on the
scene and grow, but few see me behind the scenes helping them form
initially, and I am ok with that.  The core community members in the
OSGeo foundation know that I support them in every way that I can.  I
often am actively working 2 or even 3 years in advance of a FOSS4G for
that region, talking with those regions members, getting them to think
of the possibilities, years before the release of the call for hosting.
  To you and others it looks like I have no innovation, no new ideas, I
don't work with community leaders, because you don't see me working
behind the scenes for OSGeo.  I am ok with that.  You can keep going on
in thinking this way of me, but I am very proud of what I do for OSGeo,
what I constantly try to do for OSGeo.  Long-time members of OSGeo know
how I have failed in several proposals to past OSGeo boards, and to this
day those so-called "failures" are my most proud moments.  But yes, you
can always argue that I am not innovative and do not help OSGeo.

I am also not wired to think of "money" first.  I follow my heart and I
try to do the best I can for OSGeo, for the OSGeo foundation, always,
even if it doesn't make sense for me personally or for my career.  I do
it, for the love of OSGeo.  I also realize that it is this fact, of how
I am wired, that causes conflict with others (another example is my

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Daniel Kastl]

-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 ;-)




- -- 
Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.ka...@georepublic.de
Web: https://georepublic.info
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSQVEAAoJEHjh5kk/zBG09qAH/ih/Dw0EPTePboROuR/nH+Oj
oj3SWCkcZsacgG/WmvnGtBUU5hkikz9D/jDHYqD78Goaes6IpcxZQIvsP0R5KfEG
GSagqRXhJfEkC9dZr9d1RMWtR50t7TzUixCfJ1vubYkY7pg5ARUIYgMQ1OnL6H+t
DZS/Z/KEv1M7mWTkei+MHEzgKHzhNGnDFydbruMJyhr8hu8gI3MDD1Clfu9wxfVI
fgdqwZ9mU2X5gKwWwTGp6ZumzTpSbXGP86qmhubkQCEZonkRKaDb8ascH4l5teQL
//NaMXpgU8XCkdjt8ImCBdKjjjfUOc2dXFM52JZz6Z51j/73a6lF1Ijb2fSOQYw=
=tDh+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Rob Emanuele]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your thoughts and words, I appreciate the effort you put into
explaining yourself.

I wanted to clarify one point, based on this text:

> I have followed the development of that organization right from the
beginning, where they smartly filled a void by aiming at the
business/commercial side of Open Source geospatial (of course, recently
they publicly pointed out to me, even questioned my sanity, that this was
false, I am dreaming, that they have always focused instead on the same
goals as OSGeo, but readers, do a google search for LT and press release,
and you will see their early visions).

I believe this is in response to what I had brought up on another thread,
and I wanted to make sure I was clear. I did not mean to say that
LocationTech does not aim to fill the void of bringing together the
business/commercial side of the open source community with the
users/developers. I took issue with your claim that *the* core goal of
LocationTech was "to promote business and give those businesses a stage."

As a project lead who's project is incubating at LocationTech and who's
participated in a number of facets of the organization, I have not once
felt the pressure of a business trying to promote themselves through my
work, or that a business was trying to use my work to take some stage. I've
only felt supported as an open source developer in an open source
community. Surely this is a goal of OSGeo as well, to have members of the
open source community feel supported; I would hope that would be in the set
of goals for any organization in our field. That does not mean LocationTech
has the exact same goals as OSGeo; they share goals but have their
differences. The example you rightly point out is that there are specific
aims towards supporting commercial friendly open source, for instance by
connecting the open source development work that is desired on the
commercial side to the support, financial or otherwise, of the businesses
that desire that work. The point in my original response was that to say
"the core" goal of LocationTech was to promote business and give business a
stage, was to imply that LocationTech was at it's core only concerned about
the commercial side's interests and not those of the developers or users. I
don't know that I'm fit to speak for LocationTech as a whole, but again my
experience as a project lead and developer who participates in LocationTech
is that the core of LocationTech is *not* about pushing business and
commercial concerns into my work or my dealings with the community. And for
me, as someone who really believes in the tenets and philosophies of open
source/libre, and who has taken personal effort to remain vigilant about
money and power as a potential poison to workings of a community trying to
operate by those tenets, when someone talks about a whole organization
being at it's core pushing the interests of powerful businesses, I get
nervous. I get scared that the organization might taint the open source
world with it's focus on bottom lines and proprietary ownership. And I
think we should all remain vigilant about the influences of money and
power, and that it's good to call it out if there's suspicion. But it's
also good to call out if an organization is being cast into a poisonous
role unfairly, which is what I've felt like has gone on a lot while reading
discussions (not just by you) on this mailing list.

This is again clarifying a response I had to something you had said
earlier, and I'm not trying to harp on something you had said and would
rather focus on what you are saying now. I appreciate your recent comments
on LocationTech and Andrea's work specifically. I just felt the need to
clarify my point a bit. Again, thanks for the work you put into explaining
yourself, and also the work you do for the community, much of which I'm
sure is very opaque to me but is assumed and appreciated nonetheless.

Best,
Rob

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jeff McKenna  wrote:

> Hi Cameron,
>
> Thank you for your message.  It is very refreshing to speak on this topic
> openly here, as others would rather send me strong private messages
> questioning my sanity, and making threats.  I realize that many cannot be
> open on this topic for various reasons.
>
> Let me assure everyone here that I only have one agenda, which is very
> rare these days, and that is to help the OSGeo foundation.  I am not
> muzzled by fear or threats, and I will stand up for the OSGeo foundation
> whenever that is required.  If by standing up for OSGeo's only event all
> year, FOSS4G, means that I am called "confrontational" and "obstructive",
> then yes you are fully right.
>
> Some may not know this by reading this thread, but I have always been a
> big supporter of LocationTech.  I was involved in the beginning of
> LocationTech, involved in the sense of being one of the first subscribers
> to their mailing list, and I even have had many chats inside 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

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 important clarifications below, I hope they'll help.


You compared organizational membership at LocationTech with individual 
participation at OSGeo. A much better comparison would be to compare 
OSGeo sponsors with LocationTech membership. You'll see they are 
similar. LocationTech members receive formal representation on the board 
which I think is a significant difference worth noting.


For completeness, it's worth mentioning that LocationTech's membership 
model is based on a sliding scale of revenue & employee count. A vote is 
a vote whether it comes from a huge member or tiny one, or a committer. 
I believe this largely covers your concern of economic discrimination. 
Jody mentioned that OSGeo is considering a similar model, which I think 
is a great idea.


You are correct that guest members are observers. They participate, but 
have no formal voting rights. They can upgrade their membership at any 
time should they wish to.


From an individual participation perspective, be it as users, 
contributors, or committers they are quite similar. One significant 
difference is that project committers have dedicated formal 
representation on the LocationTech board.


It's also worth mentioning that as Strategic membership grows, so does 
committer representation to counter-balance. The whole point of the 
Foundation is to provide a structured governance model so that votes 
count equally and keep various influences in balance for the betterment 
of the ecosystem.


You likely also notice that it uses the funding provided by 
organizational members to support the projects, but in a way that does 
not interfere with their independence and self governance. I believe 
that to be quite desirable from a project's perspective. Rob has shared 
his feelings on the matter as well.


I hope this helps,

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

Jeff,

For what it's worth, I think it's great you shared your vision. If you 
don't mind me saying so, it is important and belongs it a dedicated 
thread IMHO.


You commented on why was LocationTech created rather than within doing 
what it does more tightly within OSGeo. This is important for people to 
understand. In my opinion, a very important reason is that in 2011, when 
OSGeo just fired its executive director and set a very clear direction 
to be a low-capital organization, it was clear that the kinds of things 
that LocationTech does wouldn't be practical at OSGeo. Hiring a bunch of 
staff to perform services for the ecosystem wasn't practical. It still 
may not be today. The governance would have to fundamentally change to 
make this doable. Culturally it might be hard too, which is perhaps part 
of why this conversation is taking place.


At the time, it was felt LocationTech was the fastest/easiest/best path 
to fill the gaps. At the time, it was felt careful stewardship could 
avoid any harm. We are now 3 years in, and with much care taken all 
along, I'm pretty sure no harm has yet befallen OSGeo because of 
LocationTech. And in those 3 years, much benefit has arisen out of 
LocationTech, including many benefits to OSGeo projects & initiatives. 
Even financial benefits.


Many will remember that there were discussions with the OSGeo board & 
anyone who was interested before LocationTech was founded, just as it 
was founded, and many since. So many of the people involved were 
founders of OSGeo, charter members, board members, and active 
participants. They continue to be active today. This is why the 
portrayal of them as outsiders and invaders is so misleading and rather 
unfair.


Jeff, you mention your vision for OSGeo is to be the community for open 
source geospatial everywhere and anywhere. In an open source community, 
people contributing effort to do work that needs doing is a very good 
thing. There's a box around GeoForAll, and that is seen as positive 
thing. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when work is being done at a place 
with a box around it called LocationTech? That box has talented staff 
who specialize in organizing open source (inc. geospatial too) 
conferences for a living. Why not make good use of them for the benefit 
of the community and ecosystem? This is what this thread was all about.


Kind regards,

Andrea

On 15/11/15 21:18, Jeff McKenna wrote:

Hi Andrea,

I have no doubt that you mean well.  I hope that maybe seeing my 
vision for OSGeo, will help explain myself.  I feel that OSGeo and 
LocationTech are in fact different, especially in their visions (which 
would likely be why LocationTech was formed initially, I imagine there 
was a good reason not to help OSGeo grow, not to dedicate that time to 
instead help change OSGeo for the better). I realize that it is too 
late to question why we now have 2 foundations.  I would like to work 
together, but for OSGeo to have its own event, FOSS4G.  I would like 
to discuss LocationTech being more involved in the global FOSS4G, such 
as through sponsorship or special sessions.  I would like to discuss 
OSGeo bring more involved in LocationTech, and am open to your ideas how.


I hope taking all of today (it took me most of today to compile those 
words, which I made many mistakes in ha) helps you see more into my 
vision, and explains who I am and where I want to go.  I am very ok 
with people disagreeing with it.  I took a leadership training course 
for a year (in 2011), and this made me pull out my old Harvard 
Business journal print-outs ha, it was actually a good reason to 
review all of this.  I also know that a vision does not always work, 
and could be rejected by the OSGeo community at large.  I am, 
absolutely putting all of me on the line.


I am prepared for that as well.  Wow, isn't this fun? :)

Talk soon,

-jeff



On 2015-11-15 1:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:

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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jorge Sanz]

+1

Well summarized Maxi, thanks.

--
Jorge Sanz

Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity.
El 16/11/2015 07:45, "Massimiliano Cannata" 
escribió:

> Dear all
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> This is to me the key aspect without with there could not be any "official
> work together".
>
> Maxi
>
> Il 16/Nov/2015 02:09, "Andrea Ross"  ha scritto:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> For what it's worth, I think it's great you shared your vision. If you
>> don't mind me saying so, it is important and belongs it a dedicated thread
>> IMHO.
>>
>> You commented on why was LocationTech created rather than within doing
>> what it does more tightly within OSGeo. This is important for people to
>> understand. In my opinion, a very important reason is that in 2011, when
>> OSGeo just fired its executive director and set a very clear direction to
>> be a low-capital organization, it was clear that the kinds of things that
>> LocationTech does wouldn't be practical at OSGeo. Hiring a bunch of staff
>> to perform services for the ecosystem wasn't practical. It still may not be
>> today. The governance would have to fundamentally change to make this
>> doable. Culturally it might be hard too, which is perhaps part of why this
>> conversation is taking place.
>>
>> At the time, it was felt LocationTech was the fastest/easiest/best path
>> to fill the gaps. At the time, it was felt careful stewardship could avoid
>> any harm. We are now 3 years in, and with much care taken all along, I'm
>> pretty sure no harm has yet befallen OSGeo because of LocationTech. And in
>> those 3 years, much benefit has arisen out of LocationTech, including many
>> benefits to OSGeo projects & initiatives. Even financial benefits.
>>
>> Many will remember that there were discussions with the OSGeo board &
>> anyone who was interested before LocationTech was founded, just as it was
>> founded, and many since. So many of the people involved were founders of
>> OSGeo, charter members, board members, and active participants. They
>> continue to be active today. This is why the portrayal of them as outsiders
>> and invaders is so misleading and rather unfair.
>>
>> Jeff, you mention your vision for OSGeo is to be the community for open
>> source geospatial everywhere and anywhere. In an open source community,
>> people contributing effort to do work that needs doing is a very good
>> thing. There's a box around GeoForAll, and that is seen as positive thing.
>> Why is it suddenly a bad thing when work is being done at a place with a
>> box around it called LocationTech? That box has talented staff who
>> specialize in organizing open source (inc. geospatial too) conferences for
>> a living. Why not make good use of them for the benefit of the community
>> and ecosystem? This is what this thread was all about.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> On 15/11/15 21:18, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that you mean well.  I hope that maybe seeing my vision
>>> for OSGeo, will help explain myself.  I feel that OSGeo and LocationTech
>>> are in fact different, especially in their visions (which would likely be
>>> why LocationTech was formed initially, I imagine there was a good reason
>>> not to help OSGeo grow, not to dedicate that time to instead help change
>>> OSGeo for the better). I realize that it is too late to question why we now
>>> have 2 foundations.  I would like to work together, but for OSGeo to have
>>> its own event, FOSS4G.  I would like to discuss LocationTech being more
>>> involved in the global FOSS4G, such as through sponsorship or special
>>> sessions.  I would like to discuss OSGeo bring more involved in
>>> LocationTech, and am open to your ideas how.
>>>
>>> I hope taking all of today (it took me most of today to compile those
>>> words, which I made many mistakes in ha) helps you see more into my vision,
>>> and explains who I am and where I want to go.  I am very ok with people
>>> disagreeing with it.  I took a leadership training course for a year (in
>>> 2011), and this made me pull out my old Harvard Business journal print-outs
>>> ha, it was actually a good reason to review all of this.  I also know that
>>> a vision does not always work, and could be rejected by the OSGeo community
>>> at large.  I am, absolutely putting all of me on the line.
>>>
>>> I am prepared for that as well.  Wow, isn't this fun? :)
>>>
>>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Dear all
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.

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?

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?

This is to me the key aspect without with there could not be any "official
work together".

Maxi

Il 16/Nov/2015 02:09, "Andrea Ross"  ha scritto:

> Jeff,
>
> For what it's worth, I think it's great you shared your vision. If you
> don't mind me saying so, it is important and belongs it a dedicated thread
> IMHO.
>
> You commented on why was LocationTech created rather than within doing
> what it does more tightly within OSGeo. This is important for people to
> understand. In my opinion, a very important reason is that in 2011, when
> OSGeo just fired its executive director and set a very clear direction to
> be a low-capital organization, it was clear that the kinds of things that
> LocationTech does wouldn't be practical at OSGeo. Hiring a bunch of staff
> to perform services for the ecosystem wasn't practical. It still may not be
> today. The governance would have to fundamentally change to make this
> doable. Culturally it might be hard too, which is perhaps part of why this
> conversation is taking place.
>
> At the time, it was felt LocationTech was the fastest/easiest/best path to
> fill the gaps. At the time, it was felt careful stewardship could avoid any
> harm. We are now 3 years in, and with much care taken all along, I'm pretty
> sure no harm has yet befallen OSGeo because of LocationTech. And in those 3
> years, much benefit has arisen out of LocationTech, including many benefits
> to OSGeo projects & initiatives. Even financial benefits.
>
> Many will remember that there were discussions with the OSGeo board &
> anyone who was interested before LocationTech was founded, just as it was
> founded, and many since. So many of the people involved were founders of
> OSGeo, charter members, board members, and active participants. They
> continue to be active today. This is why the portrayal of them as outsiders
> and invaders is so misleading and rather unfair.
>
> Jeff, you mention your vision for OSGeo is to be the community for open
> source geospatial everywhere and anywhere. In an open source community,
> people contributing effort to do work that needs doing is a very good
> thing. There's a box around GeoForAll, and that is seen as positive thing.
> Why is it suddenly a bad thing when work is being done at a place with a
> box around it called LocationTech? That box has talented staff who
> specialize in organizing open source (inc. geospatial too) conferences for
> a living. Why not make good use of them for the benefit of the community
> and ecosystem? This is what this thread was all about.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrea
>
> On 15/11/15 21:18, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> I have no doubt that you mean well.  I hope that maybe seeing my vision
>> for OSGeo, will help explain myself.  I feel that OSGeo and LocationTech
>> are in fact different, especially in their visions (which would likely be
>> why LocationTech was formed initially, I imagine there was a good reason
>> not to help OSGeo grow, not to dedicate that time to instead help change
>> OSGeo for the better). I realize that it is too late to question why we now
>> have 2 foundations.  I would like to work together, but for OSGeo to have
>> its own event, FOSS4G.  I would like to discuss LocationTech being more
>> involved in the global FOSS4G, such as through sponsorship or special
>> sessions.  I would like to discuss OSGeo bring more involved in
>> LocationTech, and am open to your ideas how.
>>
>> I hope taking all of today (it took me most of today to compile those
>> words, which I made many mistakes in ha) helps you see more into my vision,
>> and explains who I am and where I want to go.  I am very ok with people
>> disagreeing with it.  I took a leadership training course for a year (in
>> 2011), and this made me pull out my old Harvard Business journal print-outs
>> ha, it was actually a good reason to review all of this.  I also know that
>> a vision does not always work, and could be rejected by the OSGeo community
>> at large.  I am, absolutely putting all of me on the line.
>>
>> I am prepared for that as well.  Wow, isn't this fun? :)
>>
>> Talk soon,
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-11-15 1:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:
>>
>>> 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

On 13/11/15 15:42, Mateusz Loskot wrote:

On 13 November 2015 at 14:24, Jeff McKenna
 wrote:

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".

Bang!

Jeff, thank you.

Best regards,


Jeff, Mateusz

I have answered this in my other email but I'll repeat here too in case 
it's helpful. LocationTech was founded, by many of the same founders and 
champions of OSGeo, to fill a gap. It has done a pretty good job of 
this. A bunch of what it does, isn't getting done elsewhere and is 
needed. None of this was intended to harm OSGeo in any way, and so far 
as I can see, hasn't even after 3 years. Feel free to provide any 
evidence you can offer to the contrary.


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.


Apache existed before OSGeo so the same argument could be used there. 
While I can see how it plays to emotions, I'm not sure it's a useful 
argument.


Andrea

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Sandro Santilli]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:39:22AM +0100, Andrea Ross wrote:

> It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL that keeps projects using
> those licenses out if LocationTech & Eclipse for now.

It is actually LocationTech and Eclipse keeping those projects
out, not any "virus". There's no prescription in GPL and AGPL
licenses preventing you from distributing the code.

The only thing you can not do, with GPL and AGPL, is distributing
the code while not also distributing the freedom that came with it.
Is that something LocationTech and Eclipse are planning to do ?

Please do not spread use of the term "virus" in association with
free software. Last I checked every software virus was proprietary.

For a more appropriate terminology, please refer to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Even Rouault]

Andrea,

> 
> It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL

Just as an aside: as for most people a "virus" is something not very 
positively connoted, I'd suggest rather refering to the reciprocal or share 
alike nature of the license to better describe its intent in a way that 
doesn't assume bad intentions from people selecting it as the license for 
their project.

Cheers,

Even

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[María Arias de Reyna]

Hi,

Are you sure that is a complete list of what the approved licenses are?
That would be pretty disappointing if they limit by "name" of the license
instead of by "rights".

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Massimiliano Cannata <
massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch> wrote:

> Sandro,
>
> from https://www.locationtech.org/charter in "IP Management" section:
>
> *"... The group will follow the Eclipse Foundation's IP due diligence
> process in order to provide clean open source software released under
> licenses approved by the group and the Eclipse Foundation Board of
> Directors. Approved licenses for this group include EPL, MIT, BSD, and
> Apache 2.0. "*
>
> So I understand that GPL is not welcome in LocationTech ;-)
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
> 2015-11-13 7:49 GMT+01:00 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>
> massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch
>
> *www.supsi.ch/ist *
>
> ___
> 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

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, María Arias de Reyna
 wrote:
> I answer myself, yes, they filter by name. And explicitly forbid GPL licenses:
> https://www.locationtech.org/faq-questions-inline
>
> Which licenses does LocationTech allow?
>
> The following licenses are allowed at LocationTech without special approval:
>
> EPL
> EDL (BSD)
> MIT
> Apache v2
>
> Other licenses might be considered based on approval of the
> LocationTech Steering Committee and Eclipse Foundation board.
>
>
>
> The following licenses are not allowed at LocationTech:
>
> AGPL
> GPL (v2 & v3)
>
>

For me this is a major outrage, but I understand that OSGeo is focused
on open software, not on free software. (Remember: free includes open,
open doesn't include free).

So I would understand collaborations between LocationTech and OSGeo,
where open is the key and not freedom. And we have found a big
difference between both organizations: we are more open and more free.
Maybe they still believe that they cannot do bussiness over GPL
derived licenses. And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[María Arias de Reyna]

Hi Sandro,

I agree with you. But I understand that people with less experience on
free software are afraid (at the beginning) of freedom. It is a big
step to take from closed software and not everyone is willing/brave
enough to take it. That's why I say that it is understandable. Not
that they are right to think so.

In any case, to me we finally found the main difference between the
two organizations. We can collaborate on the open field and work alone
on the free field.

To me, having other organizations collaborating is a good thing, as
long as we understand the difference and don't merge too much (which
is another possible step, but not something we decided yet to do). I
think that in Spain we have a good example with Geoinquietos, which
shares a lot with OSGeo (some people way it is the "white" brand of
OSGeo in Spain) but still, it's different. So different that in some
regions we have more in common with OSM than with OSGeo.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Sandro Santilli  wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:45:23AM +0100, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>
>> And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
>> bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
>
> I disagree on this point.
> I've been make a living out of free software development for over a
> decade now, and I know there are many people doing the same.
>
> Businesses do not need to be afraid of (software) freedom,
> but I can see businesses based on distributing non-free software
> wanting to be sure they can easily find cheap components to build
> their black boxes, and thus offering hosting for such potentially
> exploitable components.
>
> --strk;
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Sandro,

from https://www.locationtech.org/charter in "IP Management" section:

*"... The group will follow the Eclipse Foundation's IP due diligence
process in order to provide clean open source software released under
licenses approved by the group and the Eclipse Foundation Board of
Directors. Approved licenses for this group include EPL, MIT, BSD, and
Apache 2.0. "*

So I understand that GPL is not welcome in LocationTech ;-)

Maxi



2015-11-13 7:49 GMT+01:00 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
>



-- 
*Massimiliano Cannata*

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


Istituto scienze della Terra

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch

*www.supsi.ch/ist *
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[María Arias de Reyna]

I answer myself, yes, they filter by name. And explicitly forbid GPL licenses:
https://www.locationtech.org/faq-questions-inline

Which licenses does LocationTech allow?

The following licenses are allowed at LocationTech without special approval:

EPL
EDL (BSD)
MIT
Apache v2

Other licenses might be considered based on approval of the
LocationTech Steering Committee and Eclipse Foundation board.



The following licenses are not allowed at LocationTech:

AGPL
GPL (v2 & v3)


On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, María Arias de Reyna
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are you sure that is a complete list of what the approved licenses are? That
> would be pretty disappointing if they limit by "name" of the license instead
> of by "rights".
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Massimiliano Cannata
>  wrote:
>>
>> Sandro,
>>
>> from https://www.locationtech.org/charter in "IP Management" section:
>>
>> "... The group will follow the Eclipse Foundation's IP due diligence
>> process in order to provide clean open source software released under
>> licenses approved by the group and the Eclipse Foundation Board of
>> Directors. Approved licenses for this group include EPL, MIT, BSD, and
>> Apache 2.0. "
>>
>> So I understand that GPL is not welcome in LocationTech ;-)
>>
>> Maxi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-11-13 7:49 GMT+01:00 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Massimiliano Cannata
>>
>> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>>
>> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>>
>>
>> Istituto scienze della Terra
>>
>> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>>
>> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>>
>> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>>
>> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>>
>> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>>
>> massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch
>>
>> www.supsi.ch/ist
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Massimiliano Cannata]

I agree, it is always good to collaborate with other organizations, as long
as the collaboration is clear, brings mutual benefits are and there are no
conflictual goals.

Which I think is still a topic for discussion: what is you actual final
aim? How do you want to achieve it?

Maxi


2015-11-13 10:32 GMT+01:00 María Arias de Reyna :

> Hi Sandro,
>
> I agree with you. But I understand that people with less experience on
> free software are afraid (at the beginning) of freedom. It is a big
> step to take from closed software and not everyone is willing/brave
> enough to take it. That's why I say that it is understandable. Not
> that they are right to think so.
>
> In any case, to me we finally found the main difference between the
> two organizations. We can collaborate on the open field and work alone
> on the free field.
>
> To me, having other organizations collaborating is a good thing, as
> long as we understand the difference and don't merge too much (which
> is another possible step, but not something we decided yet to do). I
> think that in Spain we have a good example with Geoinquietos, which
> shares a lot with OSGeo (some people way it is the "white" brand of
> OSGeo in Spain) but still, it's different. So different that in some
> regions we have more in common with OSM than with OSGeo.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Sandro Santilli  wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:45:23AM +0100, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> >
> >> And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
> >> bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
> >
> > I disagree on this point.
> > I've been make a living out of free software development for over a
> > decade now, and I know there are many people doing the same.
> >
> > Businesses do not need to be afraid of (software) freedom,
> > but I can see businesses based on distributing non-free software
> > wanting to be sure they can easily find cheap components to build
> > their black boxes, and thus offering hosting for such potentially
> > exploitable components.
> >
> > --strk;
>



-- 
*Massimiliano Cannata*

Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica

Responsabile settore Geomatica


Istituto scienze della Terra

Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design

Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana

Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio

Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14

Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09

massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch

*www.supsi.ch/ist *
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Sandro Santilli]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:45:23AM +0100, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

> And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
> bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.

I disagree on this point.
I've been make a living out of free software development for over a
decade now, and I know there are many people doing the same.

Businesses do not need to be afraid of (software) freedom,
but I can see businesses based on distributing non-free software
wanting to be sure they can easily find cheap components to build
their black boxes, and thus offering hosting for such potentially
exploitable components.

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

> > I may as well link to my more recent talk (https://vimeo.com/142989259)
> as
>
> Interesting talk Jody, thank you !
>

Glad you enjoyed it, afraid I was a bit punch drunk after a long conference.


> 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)
>

A license conversation :) Now I know we are on an open source discussion
list :)

It is a bit more restrictive than that, there is a set list of approved
licenses (similar to how Apache Foundation, Free Software Foundation and
others operate). The Eclipse Foundation is actually more pragmatic in this
then many of the software foundations - they are not limited to their own
licenses for example.

Let me see how I do from memory (please correct me if I am wrong):

- They had some IBM license which was replaced with the Eclipse Public
License (I kind of view it as LGPL but updated with language around patents
and trademarks...)
- Eclipse Distribution License (exactly like BSD except the organization is
"Eclipse Foundation" is the organization - took me ages to figure that it
was just a BSD style license).
- Permissive licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT)
- LGPL is a borderline case - it is a "business friendly" license but it is
not on the approved list. We wrote a couple projects into the LocationTech
charter (JTS, GeoTools, GDAL) and asked the eclipse board for permission.
It appears that this process can be repeated on a case-by-case basis.
- the board has been asked about GPL and AGPL and both of those have been
rejected as restrictive licenses.
- open data license are a work in progress, we had to ask the board for
approval distribute the EPSG data base (which is a very odd open data
license)

One thing that was a shock to me during uDig integration was the focus on
making sure the build chain was all free. I had to remove some UML diagrams
that were produced with ObjectAid (that while free to download and use was
not open source).

Even though the above sounds cut and dried, all these foundations have a
mandate to promote open source. Some like the Apache Foundation and Eclipse
Foundation work very well together (anything produced by Apache is
automatically approved for use by an Eclipse Project). Even ones that are
are approaching the game from different vantage points have that common
ground - the Eclipse Foundation and Free Software Foundation where very
helpful untangling some license questions for an OSGeo project during
incubation.

I find the language used about licenses (permissive / restrictive,
free/libre, commercial friendly) tend to be less important that how the
licenses are used. Specifically what a projects intentions are when they
choose a license. One interesting take is to dual license software (no I do
not mean the open source / commercial sense - I view that as a kind of rude
way to monitize community effort). As an example uDig switched its license
to dual BSD/EPL in order to collaborate with two diverse groups of
developers. EPL allows easy communication with eclipse RCP developers (all
of which have had the EPL license approved for use in their organization).
BSD (as a universal donor) allows code to be shared with GeoTools and
friends.

One thing I want to say is the above is a pragmatic choice - as
professionals we rarely get get choose what license we work with (as we are
doing work on behalf of customers). For the bulk of my career I have been a
consultant and clients demanded LGPL (or similar). Have had the good
fortune to work on GeoServer (which is GPL). Sadly GPL is not meetings its
original intension of making the source code available to users, since many
applications are being run on servers/cloud .. so the GPL only provides
source code to the system administrator running the software. AGPL seeks to
correct this with mixed success.

While LocationTech software is restricted in what it can depend on,
LocationTech events are welcome to all. I mentioned PostGIS, GeoServer and
QGIS being the focus of student workshops. At our previous LocationTech
event Refractions Research showcased a new geocoder they had written for
the BC Government. We were all very excited that the work was being made
open source ... and released under a AGPL license.

By comparison - OSGeo accepts anything that is approved by the Open
Software Initiative (this diversity is a key strength). However OSGeo has
its rarely explored limits at the boundary between open source software
that requires a closed source platform. but we get very uncomfortable
though when the software requires a commercial component be installed. It
was difficult when the Java programs joined, although Java is now open
source some of the extensions for Java are still proprietary.

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

I thin it is in 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jody Garnett]

Comments inline:

For me this is a major outrage, but I understand that OSGeo is focused
> on open software, not on free software. (Remember: free includes open,
> open doesn't include free).
>

As mentioned in my other email I am pragmatic, focused on what my customers
want, or what the community I am working with is comfortable with. I find
that GPL is loosing its teeth with all the server/cloud software in the
mix, but have not found a rush of projects switching to AGPL ... yet.


> So I would understand collaborations between LocationTech and OSGeo,
> where open is the key and not freedom. And we have found a big
> difference between both organizations: we are more open and more free.
>

I should point out that OSGeo has a "any OSI approved license" policy and
is decidedly not pro GPL. For that you want another foundation.


> Maybe they still believe that they cannot do bussiness over GPL
> derived licenses. And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
> bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
>

I think the "business" or "commercial friendly" terms are a problem here,
the point of these licenses is not restricted to making money. Much of the
software we do at Boundless is released under a GPL license - and I
consider Boundless as a successful company. By the same token some software
we work with (GeoTools, GeoGig) is released under a more permissive license
- simply because we want to reach a larger audience.

(So look to the intensions of those releasing the software - you are
working with people and organizations after all).


I want to be very clear here - as a member of the incubation committee:
OSGeo is to be inclusive of all projects,

I would hate to give the impression we were favouring GPL software. Not in
the lest because GeoTools is LGPL for the very sensible reason that it was
the most "business friendly" license at the time.

So yeah, please dial it back a notch. You will find that Apache (another
excellent foundation does not support GPL), I could go on but it is a tired
refrain...
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Daniel Morissette]

OSGeo vs LocationTech debate aside, I would like to point out that there 
are lots of people who make the choice of non-reciprocal licenses over 
reciprocal ones, and it is not by "fear" or because they misunderstand 
the way FOSS licenses work, it for other reasons that I don't ask 
pro-freedom people to agree with.


I for one have been making a living around FOSS for 20 years, and have 
contributed thousands of lines of codes myself and through people that I 
hired to work on various open source projects, and have my own reasons 
why I think that non-reciprocal is better. It is not because of fear or 
misunderstanding, it is for my own reasons and I do not force anyone to 
agree with me. The only thing that matters is that in the end some open 
source projects were better thanks to our contributions.


It would be great if we could all be more respectful of the position of 
other community members and avoid suggesting that they are wrong in 
their choices just because they view things from a different angle.


Thank you all, and let's hope we can see more positive discussions 
around here


Daniel

P.S. I also don't think that OSGeo, LocationTech or any other org can 
claim ownership of the "value of a community" of individuals, but I 
won't step into this debate since that is just a waste of time and energy.



On 2015-11-13 10:50 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

Comments inline:

For me this is a major outrage, but I understand that OSGeo is focused
on open software, not on free software. (Remember: free includes open,
open doesn't include free).


As mentioned in my other email I am pragmatic, focused on what my
customers want, or what the community I am working with is comfortable
with. I find that GPL is loosing its teeth with all the server/cloud
software in the mix, but have not found a rush of projects switching to
AGPL ... yet.

So I would understand collaborations between LocationTech and OSGeo,
where open is the key and not freedom. And we have found a big
difference between both organizations: we are more open and more free.


I should point out that OSGeo has a "any OSI approved license" policy
and is decidedly not pro GPL. For that you want another foundation.

Maybe they still believe that they cannot do bussiness over GPL
derived licenses. And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.


I think the "business" or "commercial friendly" terms are a problem
here, the point of these licenses is not restricted to making money.
Much of the software we do at Boundless is released under a GPL license
- and I consider Boundless as a successful company. By the same token
some software we work with (GeoTools, GeoGig) is released under a more
permissive license - simply because we want to reach a larger audience.

(So look to the intensions of those releasing the software - you are
working with people and organizations after all).


I want to be very clear here - as a member of the incubation committee:
OSGeo is to be inclusive of all projects,

I would hate to give the impression we were favouring GPL software. Not
in the lest because GeoTools is LGPL for the very sensible reason that
it was the most "business friendly" license at the time.

So yeah, please dial it back a notch. You will find that Apache (another
excellent foundation does not support GPL), I could go on but it is a
tired refrain...



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




--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201

http://evouala.com/ - Location Intelligence Made Easy
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Andrea Ross]

Dear Maria,

Hopefully the choice of license for a project, or in this case choices for 
licenses by a group of projects are not cause for outrage. Each project will 
choose what makes sense to them, and that's a great thing.

This is very common. Apache has chosen the Apache license. Mozilla the MPL. 
Eclipse was EPL focused for a while, but now allows a bunch of choice and that 
list keeps growing.

For what it's worth, these choices are rarely made out of ignorance. 

It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL that keeps projects using those 
licenses out if LocationTech & Eclipse for now. That may change, or not, in 
response to the members and projects that govern want in time. 

Personally, I understand all license choice perspectives, and respect them. I 
say this as someone who's been making a living in FOSS for 25 years.

Hope this helps a bit,

Andrea

On November 13, 2015 9:45:23 AM GMT+01:00, "María Arias de Reyna" 
 wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, María Arias de Reyna
> wrote:
>> I answer myself, yes, they filter by name. And explicitly forbid GPL
>licenses:
>> https://www.locationtech.org/faq-questions-inline
>>
>> Which licenses does LocationTech allow?
>>
>> The following licenses are allowed at LocationTech without special
>approval:
>>
>> EPL
>> EDL (BSD)
>> MIT
>> Apache v2
>>
>> Other licenses might be considered based on approval of the
>> LocationTech Steering Committee and Eclipse Foundation board.
>>
>>
>>
>> The following licenses are not allowed at LocationTech:
>>
>> AGPL
>> GPL (v2 & v3)
>>
>>
>
>For me this is a major outrage, but I understand that OSGeo is focused
>on open software, not on free software. (Remember: free includes open,
>open doesn't include free).
>
>So I would understand collaborations between LocationTech and OSGeo,
>where open is the key and not freedom. And we have found a big
>difference between both organizations: we are more open and more free.
>Maybe they still believe that they cannot do bussiness over GPL
>derived licenses. And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
>bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
>___
>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]

Thanks Even. Noted.

As you likely know. It is the extra nature beyond other reciprocal licenses 
like LGPL, EPL, and MPL that is the concern. I've not heard a different term to 
describe that aspect. And it goes without saying no offense was intended. I 
understand the different perspectives and see them as an important choice to 
fit the project's goals.

Kind regards,

Andrea

On November 13, 2015 12:54:32 PM GMT+01:00, Even Rouault 
 wrote:
>Andrea,
>
>> 
>> It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL
>
>Just as an aside: as for most people a "virus" is something not very 
>positively connoted, I'd suggest rather refering to the reciprocal or
>share 
>alike nature of the license to better describe its intent in a way that
>
>doesn't assume bad intentions from people selecting it as the license
>for 
>their project.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Even
>
>-- 
>Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>http://www.spatialys.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Sandro Santilli]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Andrea Ross wrote:

> It is the extra nature beyond other reciprocal licenses like LGPL,
> EPL, and MPL that is the concern.
> I've not heard a different term to describe that aspect.

I think "reciprocal" expresses the concept very well, not sure why
you associate it with LGPL, EPL and MPL as none of them has the
"share-alike" prescription (another good term):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Andrea,

You seem to value the OSGeo community so much, so much in fact that you 
would smoothly court all 3 of our bidders for OSGeo's only source of 
revenue and publicity all year, our beloved global FOSS4G event.  It is 
true that it is "ridiculous", from an organization that (apparently 
formerly) focused on commerce, to ask OSGeo to pay you (90,000 USD), to 
take control of OSGeo's only event (worth 1,000,000 USD), and then think 
that this is a fine since you offer (my answer: a polite no thank you) 
of handling losses for OSGeo's FOSS4G event, in maybe one of the 
strongest regions for attendees in the world?  If we are speaking of 
commerce, this doesn't make sense.


I think Maxi said it well, that we all are trying to understand your 
motives here.  How about an MoU together, exchange of official letters, 
big press release, creating a working group of half LocationTech and 
half OSGeo board members, an exchange of talks at each others events, 
become the sustaining sponsor of OSGeo; instead, here we are.


If you value the OSGeo community so much, why would you create a 
separate foundation with the exact same goals, and then later come back 
to the other foundation saying "no, we love you.  Give us the right to 
run your event".  Ha, pardon?


-jeff



On 2015-11-12 7:35 PM, Andrea Ross wrote:

Jeff,

It is really hard to discuss this topic because you make stuff up. The
concerns stem from the fantasy rather than reality.

The FAQ produced recently

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, 

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 

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 

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 

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