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 1,000,000 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 > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15x1Q3J9OPM95jEkeZhYlU0xB5uO9V9NCOI28g5B_Yqc/edit?usp=drive_web> > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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