To at least have facts straight, GeoServer passed incubation in 2013 http://www.osgeo.org/news/geoserver-graduation
Bart Sent from my iPhone > On 26 sep. 2015, at 00:12, Milo van der Linden <m...@dogodigi.net> wrote: > > Being a "don't talk, act" member since 2008, entrepreneur and former chairman > of a couple of local initiatives, I strongly agree. > > Seeing all the "empty talkers" from my country run for charter membership and > still not having geoserver, which is the most mature open geospatial product > I can think of pas incubation made me completely lose interest in OSGeo. > > I am disappointed, a little frustrated and plotting a business course that > values open source and open knowledge. OSGeo or any in-crowd will have no > part in my future. > > Thank you for your honest and to the point analyses. > > Milo > >> On Sep 25, 2015 21:58, "Darrell Fuhriman" <darr...@garnix.org> wrote: >> The recent discussion on the board list that came out of the question of the >> 2014 videos has got me thinking about a few things again, and I want to try >> to get them out there. >> >> Grab a mug of your favorite liquid and hunker down, because I put some time >> and effort into this, and your own well considered reply is appreciated. >> >> Keep in mind that all of these comments are coming from my personal >> perspective, which, like everyone’s, is an incomplete picture of the whole. >> Much of what I’m going to say has been rolling around my head for a while, >> so I’m just going to put it out there. >> >> I will start with a provocative thesis: >> >> OSGeo lacks visionary unified leadership and without it will become >> irrelevant. >> >> Of course, making such a claim requires support. So let me break down the >> statement. >> >> “Visionary leadership” is really two things, “vision” and “leadership.” I >> will address each in turn. >> >> OSGeo lacks vision >> >> I looked at the list of “Goals” for OSGeo. I wonder: when was the last time >> these goals were evaluated for both success and relevancy? >> >> Here is my own opinion of success of some of these goals. (In the interest >> of brevity, I haven’t tried to tackle everything. That’s left as an exercise >> to the reader.) >> >> Example 1 >> >> To provide resources for foundation projects - eg. infrastructure, funding, >> legal. >> >> Allow me to break each of those examples down. >> Infrastructure >> >> It’s true that OSGeo provides some infrastructure, such as Trac instance, >> Mailman, SVN repos. If the budget is to be believed, we pay some $3,500/yr >> to OSUOSL for said infrastructure. I wonder if such a service is necessary, >> however. Issue tracking and source control are much better provided by >> Github, which is free for organization such as ours. >> I say this because a) that’s money that could be better spent elsewhere and >> b) supporting these services burns precious volunteer time (more on that >> below). >> There are clear cost savings available, which are not taken advantage of. >> For example, OSGeo could be hosting FOSS4G infrastructure: conference >> websites and registration, a central location for conference videos >> (regardless of platform/provider). This neglect is especially galling given >> that FOSS4G is OSGeo’s sole source of income. >> >> Funding >> >> OSGeo does not fund projects. It has provided some funds to pay for Code >> Sprints — $15k in 2014 according to the budget. >> >> Legal >> >> I see nothing that has been done on this front recently. Please feel free to >> correct me. >> >> Conclusion >> >> OSGeo, where it actually does what it claims, has not adapted in ways that >> could save money. >> >> My grade: D >> >> Example 2 >> >> To promote freely available geodata - free software is useless without data. >> >> The geodata working group is dead. As near as I can tell by perusing the >> mailing list archives, and the wiki, there has been no meaningful activity >> in the past two years (maybe more). >> >> My grade: F >> >> Example 3 >> >> To promote the use of open source software in the geospatial industry (not >> just foundation software) - eg. PR, training, outreach. >> >> The Board of Directors page says: >> Packaging and Marketing >> >> OSGeo’s marketing effort has primarily been focused around the packaging and >> documentation efforts of OSGeo-Live, and to a lesser extend[sic], osgeo4w. >> […] It has been entirely driven by volunteer labour, with 140 OSGeo-Live >> volunteers, and printing costs have been covered by local events or >> sponsors. In the last couple of years, OSGeo has covered local chapter >> expenses required to purchase non-consumable items for conference booths >> (such as a retractable banner). In moving forward, OSGeo hope to extend >> marketing reach by providing co-contributions toward printing costs of >> consumable items at conferences, such as toward OSGeo-Live DVDs. >> >> Local Chapters >> >> Much of OSGeo’s marketing initiates are applied at the local level. In many >> cases, this is best supported through as little as an email list and wiki >> page. OSGeo also supports local chapters by offering to pay for an >> Exhibition starter pack for local chapters. Local chapters are also usually >> the coordinators of conferences and related events, as mentioned above. >> >> Exhibition starter packs almost never happen; OSGeo-Live explicitly gets no >> support; and OSGeo struggles to staff a booth at its own conference to say >> nothing of any other conferences. >> >> Note: Local chapters certainly do do marketing and outreach, but these >> efforts are essentially unsupported by the OSGeo Foundation. In fact, this >> goal and the Board of Directors webpage seem to be explicitly contradictory. >> >> My grade: F. >> >> Commentary >> >> I could go on with my own personal evaluations, but I’m not sure that’s >> necessary. The only place I see that OSGeo has unquestionably succeeded in >> the past few years is the final goal, “To award the Sol Katz award for >> service to the OSGeo community”. >> >> So, what’s my point here? It’s simple: there is no longer a coherent vision >> for what OSGeo should be. I’ll return to that below, but let me continue >> with my other point. >> >> OSGeo lacks leadership >> >> Again quoting the Board of Directors’ page: >> >> The board’s primary responsibility is to efficiently and effectively make >> strategic decisions related to the running of OSGeo. >> >> I won’t bore you with the details, but a perusal of the board meeting >> minutes would indicate that strategy is rarely, if ever, a part of the >> meetings. >> >> The emphasis on consensus-based decision making often leads to no decisions >> being made. I can’t count the number of discussions that have come up on the >> board list only to devolve into a morass of nit-picking and eventual lack of >> action when everyone tires of the discussion. What action that is taken is >> often to “delegate” to a (possibly inactive) sub-committee, then never >> follow up. >> >> Instead what we have is a great deal of inertia, little interest in changing >> things, and no clear indication of what the Board’s priorities are. >> >> If priorities do exist, they’re lost in a maze of confusing, incomplete and >> often contradictory information on the wiki. (Wikis — like abandonware for >> documentation.) >> >> On pending irrelevancy >> >> I encourage you to ask some random people in the open source geospatial >> community what OSGeo means to them. I would make a bet that the most common >> answer is a blank stare. >> >> I would ask the board members to come up with three things, other than >> FOSS4G, where the OSGeo membership has shown its importance to the community >> as a whole in the last two years. Something where people say, “Did you hear >> about [exciting thing] OSGeo is doing on X?” To be clear, I don’t mean just >> things that OSGeo has a finger in, but things that need OSGeo. If OSGeo >> disappeared tomorrow, would any of these projects be significantly affected? >> >> I don’t think it can be done. The OSGeo Foundation is sliding into >> irrelevancy — and it may already be there. >> >> If anything should be seen as strategic for OSGeo, it’s FOSS4G, the >> foundation’s primary (sole?) source of income. Even regarding its flagship >> public event, the board is largely absent. Rather than provide adequate >> resources and planning, they instead rely on burning out volunteers, then >> make post-hoc demands on the way they should have done it, provide no future >> support for organizers to heed those demands, rarely follow up, then go on >> to repeat the same mistakes the following year. Honestly, it’s surprising >> that FOSS4G has failed only once. (I think this is a reflection of the >> demand for the conference, not the blazing competence of OSGeo.) >> >> Michael Gerlek brought this up on the osgeo-discuss list in July, and >> probably has a more generous spin on it. He essentially argues that it’s >> time to declare mission accomplished and shut down or rebooted. I agree with >> his points, and I’m arguing that OSGeo can have something to offer, but it >> will require a major re-think of its mission. >> >> Fixing things >> >> I hinted at this in my recent questions to the board candidates, but I want >> to be explicit here: OSGeo needs to evolve or die. >> >> Here’s how I would do it: >> >> The board needs to evaluate all of its goals, as defined on the About page, >> to decide if they are still truly goals. Define any new goals. >> >> Ask the question: “What does it mean to succeed at this goal?” >> >> If the goal is vague, or ongoing, give a timeline: “What does success look >> like for this goal one year from now?” >> >> Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask the question, >> “How will we know if we’ve succeeded?” >> >> Prioritize the goals. >> >> Allocate resources to the goals. >> >> Obviously this is a tricky one, but I think we can look at this a balance >> between Importance and Effort. >> >> >> >> Spend money to reduce to the effort required, more money if the goal is more >> important — this might be the hardest cultural shift. Volunteer time is >> precious and easily discouraged. Make sure that you make it as efficient as >> possible by spending money when you can. >> >> >> >> For example, many of the infrastructure services OSGeo provides can be >> easily outsourced to more featureful services that are more responsive and >> rely less on volunteer labor. >> >> Close the loop on tasks. When a task is delegated to a committee or >> individual, track its progress, both to know that it is or isn’t happening, >> and to be able to acknowledge and incorporate the work when it’s done. >> Failing to acknowledge people’s labor or to use the results of that labor >> will virtually guarantee that the volunteer does not continue to help. >> >> Evaluate success and failure. GOTO 1. >> >> Aside: none if this will happen without a strong executive. Whether that >> position is paid or not is up to the board, but it’s clear that there needs >> to be someone who can make decisions without endless rounds of fruitless >> discussions. The board as currently constituted is not dysfunctional, but it >> is mostly afunctional. >> >> I’m will go so far as to suggest this: Fly every board member who is >> available to a two or three day retreat. Get everyone in the same room, a >> professional facilitator to speed the process, then figure out what OSGeo is >> going to be and how to get there. Don’t fret excessively about the expense — >> this isn’t about saving money, it’s about saving OSGeo. >> >> If you ask me, irrelevancy is a fate worse than death. Be bold! It’s better >> to try to do something big and new then fail than to simply fade away and be >> forgotten. >> >> Though my comments above may sound harsh, they are sent with the very best >> of intentions. I want OSGeo to succeed, but OSGeo is never going to succeed >> if it doesn’t know what it’s try to succeed at. Without real reform, I don’t >> see success happening, just irrelevance. Here’s hoping this gets the ball >> rolling. >> >> Darrell >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
