Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo-EU toward a new OSGeo scenario?

[Johan Van de Wauw]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:53 AM,   wrote:
> So I agree with Marc on most of his points but like to put the focus more on
> the business side of view: Please keep in mind, that in order to get at leat
> a tiny bit of influence in Brussels and EU-related organisations requires a
> European Organisation. No matter that this is related to a global,
> US-resident organisation.
>
+1
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo-EU toward a new OSGeo scenario?

[Marc Vloemans]

Thanks Till
For adding out the bottom line; even in a globalised world most 
European entities preferably deal with European entities. Especially if it 
concerns public policy and commercial matters. So let locals scratch local 
itches (imagine a European knocking on the door of the White House ;-)
And let's get downto business (sorry, for the pun).

@All
By the way, when organisations grow and mature, they usually differentiate 
their activities and adapt organisational structure to accommodate the 
wider/growing  variety of members/stakeholders/customers. This way no one feels 
 left out and there is always something for someone to benefit from. For OSGeo 
this is the next step/phase in its evolution.
Whether, it will lead to uncontrollable fragmentation, chaos and unwanted split 
offs is principally a managerial problem. Something for Board, officers, 
Chartermembers etc to deal with in a sensible, professional and rational manner.

Soquestion.who feel(s) this particular itch the most


Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 8 mei 2016 om 08:53 heeft till.ad...@fossgis.de het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> after editing on an email for some days now, I noticed after all that most of 
> the words, I'd like to contribute to this duscussion have already been 
> written down by Marc.
> 
> So I agree with Marc on most of his points but like to put the focus more on 
> the business side of view: Please keep in mind, that in order to get at leat 
> a tiny bit of influence in Brussels and EU-related organisations requires a 
> European Organisation. No matter that this is related to a global, 
> US-resident organisation.
> 
> Regards, Till
> 
> 
> Am 2016-05-03 23:35, schrieb Marc VLOEMANS:
>> Dear Maxi et al
>> 
>> Great to continue another part of our strategy-in-the-making! My
>> reasons why I feel we need a regional EU chapter and its consequences
>> below.
>> 
>> As with many international organisations I am a supporter of the
>> strategy-adagio ; plan global, act local.
>> 
>> This enables local flavours to an overall
>> vision-mission-strategy-story. (Even Coca Cola encourages local
>> initiatives under a global brand and growth strategy.) Which addresses
>> the fact that, for example the GeoServer project, has many
>> region/country specific implementations and add-ons. Just think of the
>> specific European INSPIRE directive, with special plugins for
>> metadata etc.
>> 
>> Furthermore, outreach and lobby (see the Concept Marketing discussion
>> in the Wiki) have to deal with a host of different cultures and
>> political entities in Europe. Unlike a relatively homogenous US
>> marketplace. Most notably we have a influential/powerful centralised
>> EU government in Brussels as a pan-national stakeholder.
>> 
>> Now, local chapters could be invited to localise our overall strategic
>> roadmap (I happily take my analogy from software). But they are either
>> not set up or not equipped to deal with this matter (compare our
>> similar efforts on .org level). And they are certainly not able to
>> influence European/Brussels policy from their relative distance.
>> 
>> If a European OSGeo.eu can be the collaborative entity to work towards
>> further open spatial dissemination, on this side of the
>> Atlantic, then I am all for this. It could also facilitate FOSS4GEU
>> in stead of having a local chapter carry the weight.  It is a
>> European itch, so lets scratch it ourselves.
>> And if Africa and Asia and Middle-East have
>> other dissemination needs than power to them.
>> 
>> From an OSGeo-organisational point of view, we will certainly have to
>> look into the overall governance. In my opinion we are in a phase in
>> which we step up our game, professionalise, re-group and re-organise
>> where required. However, splitting would be disastrous. 
>> 
>> A simple solution is that board representation is based on certain
>> roles and representatives:
>> Chair, Secretary and Treasurer: General roles, therefor voted by all
>> chapter members
>> For marketing, sponsoring (single/grouped) etc; also individuals
>> voted by all
>> Representative EU: voted by EU chapter members
>> Representative Asia: voted by Asian chapter 
>> These last two roles could be combined with other specific roles if
>> needed.
>> 
>> Regional Chapters to be voted on by the local chapters in the area.
>> Or such like.
>> Yes, a little more of a Christmas tree, but that can be solved. It
>> reflects a need for required change.
>> 
>> The overall issue is that we grow in depth, width and length and
>> therefore we need to revisit/rethink how the organisation is managed
>> for future growth and relevance.
>> And managing large internationally distributed organisations is an
>> art, a craft and a profession. Especially if the organisation consists
>> of critical, vocal and engaged volunteers.
>> That can be daunting for those involved, but working in open source
>> throws us much larger daunting challenges on a daily 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo-EU toward a new OSGeo scenario?

[till . adams]

Dear all,

after editing on an email for some days now, I noticed after all that 
most of the words, I'd like to contribute to this duscussion have 
already been written down by Marc.


So I agree with Marc on most of his points but like to put the focus 
more on the business side of view: Please keep in mind, that in order to 
get at leat a tiny bit of influence in Brussels and EU-related 
organisations requires a European Organisation. No matter that this is 
related to a global, US-resident organisation.


Regards, Till


Am 2016-05-03 23:35, schrieb Marc VLOEMANS:

Dear Maxi et al

Great to continue another part of our strategy-in-the-making! My
reasons why I feel we need a regional EU chapter and its consequences
below.

As with many international organisations I am a supporter of the
strategy-adagio ; plan global, act local.

This enables local flavours to an overall
vision-mission-strategy-story. (Even Coca Cola encourages local
initiatives under a global brand and growth strategy.) Which 
addresses

the fact that, for example the GeoServer project, has many
region/country specific implementations and add-ons. Just think of 
the

specific European INSPIRE directive, with special plugins for
metadata etc.

Furthermore, outreach and lobby (see the Concept Marketing discussion
in the Wiki) have to deal with a host of different cultures and
political entities in Europe. Unlike a relatively homogenous US
marketplace. Most notably we have a influential/powerful centralised
EU government in Brussels as a pan-national stakeholder.

Now, local chapters could be invited to localise our overall 
strategic
roadmap (I happily take my analogy from software). But they are 
either

not set up or not equipped to deal with this matter (compare our
similar efforts on .org level). And they are certainly not able to
influence European/Brussels policy from their relative distance.

If a European OSGeo.eu can be the collaborative entity to work 
towards

further open spatial dissemination, on this side of the
Atlantic, then I am all for this. It could also facilitate FOSS4GEU
in stead of having a local chapter carry the weight.  It is a
European itch, so lets scratch it ourselves.
And if Africa and Asia and Middle-East have
other dissemination needs than power to them.

From an OSGeo-organisational point of view, we will certainly have to
look into the overall governance. In my opinion we are in a phase in
which we step up our game, professionalise, re-group and re-organise
where required. However, splitting would be disastrous. 

A simple solution is that board representation is based on certain
roles and representatives:
Chair, Secretary and Treasurer: General roles, therefor voted by all
chapter members
For marketing, sponsoring (single/grouped) etc; also individuals
voted by all
Representative EU: voted by EU chapter members
Representative Asia: voted by Asian chapter 
These last two roles could be combined with other specific roles if
needed.

Regional Chapters to be voted on by the local chapters in the area.
Or such like.
Yes, a little more of a Christmas tree, but that can be solved. It
reflects a need for required change.

The overall issue is that we grow in depth, width and length and
therefore we need to revisit/rethink how the organisation is managed
for future growth and relevance.
And managing large internationally distributed organisations is an
art, a craft and a profession. Especially if the organisation 
consists

of critical, vocal and engaged volunteers.
That can be daunting for those involved, but working in open source
throws us much larger daunting challenges on a daily basis.

My two (Euro)cents

Cheers Marc

Op dinsdag 3 mei 2016 heeft Massimiliano Cannata
 het volgende geschreven:


Dear Dirk and all,
I came across the e...@list.osgeo.org which I didnt know the
existence before of your last message. The archive [1] is showing
very low traffic (2 thread, one of 2015 and one of 2016) with few
contributors to the discussions (3 people). 
In my opinion times are very immature for creating an OSGeo-EU; it
seems to me that the discussion just started.

Apart from visions and perspective which could be different, im
concerned about the creation of an European OSGeo chapter and maybe
in the next future of an Asian one.
To my point of View, this may be the start of a disruption process
which could lead to to the creation of  multiple regional
foundations.

I have to say that I was already reluctant on the formation of North
American chapter for the same reason.

This structure is one option, but then I see the "international
OSGeo" (now OSGeo only) to be totally redesigned in the case. 

Probably each continent should then elect one/two representatives
for the "international OSGeo" and each "continental chapter" will
have their members and their rules that scale down to "national
local chapters" that have their own rules and members and elects
representatives for the 

[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo-EU toward a new OSGeo scenario?

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Dear Dirk and all,
I came across the e...@list.osgeo.org which I didn't know the existence
before of your last message. The archive [1] is showing very low traffic (2
thread, one of 2015 and one of 2016) with few contributors to the
discussions (3 people).
In my opinion times are very immature for creating an OSGeo-EU; it seems to
me that the discussion just started.

Apart from visions and perspective which could be different, i'm concerned
about the creation of an European OSGeo chapter and maybe in the next
future of an Asian one.
To my point of View, this may be the start of a disruption process which
could lead to to the creation of  multiple regional foundations.

I have to say that I was already reluctant on the formation of North
American chapter for the same reason.

This structure is one option, but then I see the "international OSGeo" (now
OSGeo only) to be totally redesigned in the case.

Probably each continent should then elect one/two representatives for the
"international OSGeo" and each "continental chapter" will have their
members and their rules that scale down to "national local chapters" that
have their own rules and members and elects representatives for the
continental chapter.

Also each "continental" will have its annual conference and the
International could happen once every two years.

Said that, I have no recipe and while understanding the motivation behind
this disruption process I have some fear of splitting communities. This may
lead in the future to different incubation processes, visions strategies
etc...

If this is the selected "option" I which that the process of
de-localization could be run in a more democratic way - doocracy is good
but when important matters involves several people democracy is far way
better as it explicitly involve everyone, not only those who " tends to
favor the more vocal people, leaving the "general opinion" largely unknown."


So my question (with no prejudices) is, are we going toward and do we seek
for a different OSGeo scenario?


Maxi


[1] http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/European-Union-Chapter-f5250537.html



Sorry if I garbled my understanding of the initial email, I did ask for
clarification :P

--
Jody Garnett

On 2 May 2016 at 12:23, Massimiliano Cannata 
wrote:

> Dear Board Members,
> while I understand the call for presentation for the OSGeo vision,
> regarding FOSS4G Europe, i see different visions within the community.
>
> One things is the EU local chapter, another is the FOSS4G local event
> which has a different vision in my understanding and my opinion.
>
> What is your opinion?
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-05-02 17:56 GMT+02:00 Jody Garnett :
>
>> Thanks Till:
>>
>> I see that the presentation covering our mission/vision/goals has been
>> accepted  - perhaps that can take
>> some pressure of keynotes? I would appreciate company if Maxi (who has been
>> doing so much planning work) was willing.
>>
>> To clarify point two - are you considering a european foss4g event? Or a
>> vision for how OSGeo can be effective in Europe.
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:19,  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear OSGeo board,
>>>
>>> I come to you in sight of OSGeo presence @FOSS4G 2016 in Bonn. After
>>> sending out the accteptance-emails for the proposals for the regular track
>>> we now also care heavily about all the other programme related issues.
>>>
>>> One thing we want to finalize ASAP are the plenary talks/sessions we
>>> will have.
>>>
>>> We would be very pleased, if we could have two presentations from OSGeo
>>> within the limits of our plenary sessions:
>>>
>>> 1. Traditionally the OSGeo president should run the Sol Katz Award
>>> session as well as the student awardings - both together in the closing
>>> session.  So we would be happy if Venka would agree in adopting that. This
>>> would be  on friday afternoon, the detailed time schedule will come soon.
>>>
>>> 2. In order to have both, a presentation of OSGeo's new "Vision and
>>> Mission" but also to present the "Vision of an European FOSS4G" I would
>>> like to ask kindly whether Vice-President Dirk Frigne wants to talk about
>>> this in a keynote on wednesday noon. I think especially on an european
>>> FOSS4G with a lot of european organisations being advocated, showing the
>>> vision of a worldwide, but also of an european FOSS4G makes a lot of sense.
>>> Dirk as a Vice-President is the perfect person to combine both talks into
>>> one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please also consider organizing the OSGeo booth, for questions just
>>> contact me.
>>>
>>> Till
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>