The recent discussion on the board list
<https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-September/013172.html> 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
<http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html>. 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
<http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2014>.
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
<http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Packaging_and_Marketing>
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
<https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-July/014521.html> 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:
1.
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.
2.
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?˙˙
1.
Create measureable objectives for achieving those goals. Ask the
question, ˙˙How will we know if we˙˙ve succeeded?˙˙
2.
Prioritize the goals.
3.
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.
1.
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.
2.
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
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
