Has there been any discussion about governance for the new Masperver Foundation? My impression (and hope) is that the signatories have at least discussed this somewhat. I would like to see something come about that made sure to include a wide breadth of the Mapserver Community. The signatories were primarily made up of core developers. I would like to see the Foundation involve the following.
1. Core application developers 2. Core organized client application developers (ie ka-map, mapbuilder, etc) 3. Service Providers (individual consultants, DM, Refractions, Autodesk etc) 4. Users (individuals, user groups, universities, government agencies) There are probably more, or perhaps the above could be further sub-divided, but it would nice if the members of the Foundation board would have an area that they were responsibility for being the lead cheerleader and lobbiest for (ie a Users Group rep could advocate for pulling together resources that could be used to facilitate users group meetings while a service provider rep could advocate for a section on the web site dedicated to finding commercial support). Another question, will the board be subject to elections from the community as a whole? I think a lot of ground can be gained for support of these projects by appropriately representing the different interests that there are in this project. On 11/29/05, Gerry Creager N5JXS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul, > > I hate to have to add fuel to the fire, but I feel I need to comment. > > Ed's comments were lengthy, but you managed to dismiss them in a single > sentence. However, he's on-target about several key points. > > I recall, at the last MUM, the comments about a closed group to better > guide future releases. However, in general, the process has maintainted > the appearance of openness and bugs were readily discussed, as were > feature additions. This may, in retrospect, have announced the initial > closure of the organization. > > Mapserver has been a stellar community effort. Locking down the group, > creating the Foundation, and springing it on this same Community, has > had a chilling effect. Yesterday, with the initial announcement, I was > excited. Today, having read the Open Letter more closely, and the press > releases, I now share the concerns Ed so eloquently articulated. I > can't effect significant change on the Foundation. My University can't > effect significant change... I don't see a mechanism for my University > to participate, save as a user. > > I've been involved in organizations who morphed in this manner before, > and unfortunately, it's usually resulted in the organization being taken > over by the corporate partners. There are shining examples of this not > happening: OGC's roots are in corporate sponsorship but they've been > refreshingly non-partisan... although there's a tendancy to reflect a > product as being OGC compliant when it meets some subset of the > testing... and the rather staggering costs associated with official > compliance testing: Mapserver's not been tested recently, as I recall, > for this very reason. > > I, too, object to the terms "Mapserver [insert favorite animal here]" > and "Mapserver Enterprise" as the impression is the tool I have been > using so successfully, the one I've been promoting to my ESRI-using > colleagues, and where I've demonstrated often equal or better > performance, is a toy, and this newly advertised addition, somewhat > largish and hard to downlaod and implement initially, is better, more > secure, has an improved pedigree and is a real "enterprise-ready" (note: > ISO-9002 buzzword-compliant) product. Oh... and yes, let's capitalize > on the term Mapserver. > > So: I'm frustrated. This isn't directed at you, Paul, but more at the > process and the participants who elected to keep this process a secret > from the Community whove been supportive in the past. A Community that > would likely benefit from this concept in the future. But not a > Community likely to benefit from an advertising exercise for pure > corporate gain. I work for a University, and I have several projects > that depend on this technology. I can't make money off it. I can > support its development periodically, and I can provide thoughts and > suggestions. But where's the benefit for me if I can't implement the > product most likely to see the improvements, and if I cannot create the > working files for that package because it requires a computer operating > system that has been deemed unsafe in our environment? No, Virginia, I > don't have a spare Windows workstation. > > I don't know how to resolve this, or who will. I do know I'm > disappointed at how all this came about, and my inability to effect > change. > > Respectfully, > Gerry Creager > > Paul Spencer wrote: > > Puneet, > > > > re legal indemnification, I don't think the intention is for Autodesk > > to provide that (directly). Autodesk is funding the creation of a > > separate legal entity (think Apache Foundation) and that legal entity > > will be tasked with determining what it will provide and how. > > > > Lowell, thanks for the support ... > > > > Ed, I'm sorry that you feel this way but you certainly have the right > > to express your opinion ... > > > > Cheers > > > > Paul > > > > On 29-Nov-05, at 12:23 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote: > > > >> I must underscore that I am not alluding to any conspiracy of any > >> sort. I am only alluding to the facts that -- > >> > >> 1. Putting commercial entries as sponsors of opensource, Autodesk > >> or any other, in the manner that it seems like in the case of > >> MapServer, takes something away from the grassroots community > >> aspect of it all. DMS is fairly innocuous here, and I have little > >> reason to doubt them. I have known them for several years, and some > >> of them are my friends. Others may rightly or wrongly feel > >> differently. I can certainly understand Ed's point of view given > >> his position as a business owner of a similar scale. But, does > >> Autodesk being in the fray preclude, antagonize, or even attract > >> other similar sized commercial entities? How will ESRI or > >> Intergraph or Mapinfo or even Oracle and/or Microsoft (all with > >> interests in GIS and mapping) react? > >> > >> 2. The nomenclature does make it seem like the real MapServer has > >> gotten the short shrift. First there was 'classic' or 'lite.' Then > >> came 'professional.' Now Enterprise seems to be all the rage. I > >> could imagine M2EE (MapServer 2 Enterprise Edition), but MapServer > >> Cheetah just doesn't have the same feel other than providing a > >> convenient pencil cover art for the next O'Reilly mapping-made-easy > >> edition. It does seem like Autodesk is making out here on the > >> goodwill established by MapServer. If not a fork of the source, it > >> certainly will be a fork of the energies. I highly doubt the same > >> folks will be able to contribute to both causes with equal vigor. > >> > >> On the other hand, yes, legal indemnification might be worthwhile > >> attraction. Does Autodesk really provide that? To what extent? I > >> haven't done my due diligence on all aspects of the deal. > >> > >> > >> > >> Lowell.Filak wrote: > >> > >>> Just as a side-note I can't envision UMN, DM Solutions, & Autodesk > >>> lumped together in the discussion. While I understand the points > >>> made and responsibility must be shouldered. I also know that DM > >>> Solutions & UMN has always put Mapserver first. > >>> I think Steve alluded to the legal protection aspect that comes > >>> with Autodesk. Wasn't it a couple of years ago that a copyright > >>> holder threatened to sue the world of internet mapping? We thought > >>> it was a joke but... > >>> Is it possible that DMS & UMN felt the need (pressure) to do it > >>> NOW (aka. our next generation app is ready and we need to beat > >>> Goliath to market or else we pull out of negotiations)? > >>> Lowell > >>> Puneet Kishor writes: > >>> > >>>> Greetings all (and Ed). I re-joined the list today on coming > >>>> across the Autodesk newsblurb. My immediate feeling was, "If you > >>>> can't beat 'em..." The "you" was Autodesk, and "'em" was you-know- > >>>> who. That was followed by a little bit of giddyness, as it meant > >>>> that my beloved MapServer was going high profile. I immediately > >>>> darted off a congratulatory note to the pater of MapServer. But, > >>>> the feeling has worn off; and Ed's very thoughtful (and wordy) > >>>> note below has reinforced some of the diffidence that I feel. > >>>> First, I do feel that MapServer seems to get the second place > >>>> here. Everyone and their janitor wants "Enterprise." This Cheetah > >>>> bullshit ain't gonna work. Makes MS-C look sound like a hobby-kit. > >>>> Second, Autodesk gets a big, free PR thing out of it, and it > >>>> doesn't even work on a Mac... I mean, give me a break. > >>>> I am all for the foundation, have been from the day I chimed in > >>>> my support at Ottawa... we all wanted to know where to send the > >>>> check of support, and a foundation would have been such a recipient. > >>>> This foundation is a bit of a squib, unless one's shilling for > >>>> Autodesk. > >>>> That said, I am not as pessimistic as Ed might sound... yes, > >>>> there never will be another "founder" other than those involved, > >>>> and yes, personally, I would rather think of UMN as a founder > >>>> instead of any other commercial entity. But, the key is to find a > >>>> way out/around this, and get the MapServer brand as de- > >>>> commercialized as possible. > >>>> And, for heaven's sake, lets get the Enterprise moniker. > >>>> Ed McNierney wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Folks - > >>>>> This morning I sent a few comments about the MapServer Foundation > >>>>> off-list to Steve Lime, and (at my request) he forwarded them on > >>>>> to some > >>>>> of the other folks involved. After a comments by a few folks > >>>>> there were > >>>>> requests that I post my messages to the broader community. This > >>>>> post is > >>>>> an attempt to do that in a consolidated way. I apologize for being > >>>>> wordy, but there's a lot to say. > >>>>> I've been a member of the MapServer "community" for several > >>>>> years now. > >>>>> The Foundation project is the first time I can ever recall there > >>>>> being a > >>>>> conscious, ongoing, and deliberate attempt to exclude most of the > >>>>> community from a discussion of significance about MapServer. A > >>>>> small > >>>>> number of people - some of whom are dedicated developers who've > >>>>> contributed far more than I ever have - decided to enter into > >>>>> discussions that included two commercial firms (DM Solutions and > >>>>> Autodesk). No one else got to participate, and the work was > >>>>> deliberately kept secret. Doesn't sound like much of an "open" > >>>>> project > >>>>> to me. > >>>>> A MapServer Foundation is a very, very good idea. This MapServer > >>>>> Foundation has gotten off to a very, very bad start. I find > >>>>> myself in > >>>>> the position of being quite reluctant to support this instance of a > >>>>> concept I eagerly wish to support. > >>>>> I think I should start by explaining why I think a MapServer > >>>>> Foundation > >>>>> is a very good idea (as opposed to what others think, even > >>>>> though we > >>>>> generally seem to agree). MapServer has been well-served by the > >>>>> technical and development community that supports it. It has > >>>>> mainly > >>>>> lacked many of the things that make a "program" a "product". It > >>>>> needs > >>>>> better documentation, easier setup and sample sites, product > >>>>> summaries > >>>>> and literature, feature/benefit brochures and comparisons, > >>>>> benchmarking > >>>>> tests, presentations, a coordinated trade show/conference plan, > >>>>> better > >>>>> marketing, directories of consultants, reference sites, etc. I > >>>>> don't > >>>>> mean to denigrate any of the efforts made along any of these > >>>>> lines, but > >>>>> I think we all know there are things you can currently get from > >>>>> commercial vendors that aren't available with MapServer. A > >>>>> Foundation > >>>>> would be a great way to provide these things. It wouldn't need > >>>>> to get > >>>>> in the way of the development work, and could complement it by > >>>>> filling > >>>>> in the blanks. > >>>>> All of that takes money. A MapServer Foundation needs funding > >>>>> to do > >>>>> these things. Fortunately, there are several subsets of the > >>>>> MapServer > >>>>> community that are in a position to contribute funding. There are > >>>>> commercial users of MapServer (folks like me, GlobeXplorer, etc.), > >>>>> commercial developers/consultancies like DM Solutions and > >>>>> others, and > >>>>> the government and educational users who tend to not have much > >>>>> money to > >>>>> spend but can usually contribute something. > >>>>> To date, organizations interested in financial support for > >>>>> MapServer > >>>>> have been limited to funding specific software development > >>>>> tasks. The > >>>>> pace of that development has been such that every time I raise > >>>>> an idea > >>>>> about a project TopoZone could fund, it seems that someone else has > >>>>> gotten there first. I could have chipped in money for "future > >>>>> development", but there was no place to put it - it didn't make > >>>>> sense to > >>>>> just send Frank or Daniel or Steve a check and tell them to try > >>>>> to spend > >>>>> it somehow. And I would rather fund the "other stuff" than fund > >>>>> feature > >>>>> development - there's more of a need for it. A Foundation could > >>>>> fix > >>>>> that, by providing a place that takes in revenue from members and > >>>>> sponsors, and uses that revenue to fund projects - probably > >>>>> non-development projects as I mentioned above, since those won't > >>>>> get > >>>>> funded otherwise. The OGC membership model is a relevant and > >>>>> simple > >>>>> example of this sort of thing. > >>>>> So what does the Foundation need to do that? It needs to be > >>>>> open and > >>>>> inclusive, eligible to all to participate as peers or as peers > >>>>> within > >>>>> certain classes of membership. It needs to be independent of any > >>>>> particular sponsor, and it also needs to APPEAR to be > >>>>> independent. It > >>>>> needs to have a clear mission and it needs to simplify and clarify > >>>>> things for its members and for its constituent base. It needs > >>>>> to be > >>>>> seen as the unswerving voice dedicated to the support of > >>>>> MapServer and > >>>>> nothing else. > >>>>> Today's announcement missed those goals by a wide mark. Some of > >>>>> those > >>>>> errors can be corrected, but some we'll have to live with > >>>>> forever. And > >>>>> most of them could have been avoided by the kind of open, inclusive > >>>>> discussion we've always had in the MapServer community - until now. > >>>>> Supporting the MapServer Foundation is a great PR and marketing > >>>>> opportunity. It appears that Autodesk and DM Solutions were > >>>>> extremely > >>>>> aware of that, and made sure that they didn't have to share that > >>>>> opportunity with anyone else. Being a "founder" is very > >>>>> important, and > >>>>> you've already seen Autodesk and DM Solutions take advantage of > >>>>> that > >>>>> through their own press releases today. No other company will > >>>>> *ever* > >>>>> get that chance - the press doesn't really care about the next few > >>>>> companies to sign on. When I created TopoZone in 1999, it was > >>>>> incredibly important to be the first topographic map site on the > >>>>> Web, > >>>>> because the PR value was so great. I suspect very few folks > >>>>> remember > >>>>> who launched the second one.... > >>>>> Companies will be attracted to sponsor the Foundation because of > >>>>> that PR > >>>>> value. Unfortunately, that value's gone and nothing will get it > >>>>> back. > >>>>> I'm certainly a potential financial supporter of the Foundation, > >>>>> but I'm > >>>>> also running a business. I can't simply give money away, but I can > >>>>> spend it on things that give me PR and marketing value. I could > >>>>> spend a > >>>>> pretty substantial (for me) sum as an annual commitment to the > >>>>> Foundation. I am now a *lot* less inclined to provide that > >>>>> support to > >>>>> this Foundation, because the value (in PR and marketing terms) is a > >>>>> whole lot less than it would have been if I could have been > >>>>> invited to > >>>>> the party. I'm certainly welcome to sign on and take a seat > >>>>> right up > >>>>> near the front - as long as it isn't in the front row. > >>>>> I don't say that because I'm personally miffed at being excluded > >>>>> - I'm > >>>>> just TopoZone. I say that because we'll never know how many > >>>>> firms and > >>>>> how much financial support could have been raised if someone had > >>>>> tried > >>>>> to solicit input and support in an open, inclusive way. There > >>>>> are lots > >>>>> of us out here. I've been told that it's "incredibly important" > >>>>> that > >>>>> the Foundation be seen as vendor-neutral and that it not be at > >>>>> the mercy > >>>>> of a single funder's contributions. Sounds good, but don't tell > >>>>> me that > >>>>> now - those are both reasons to solicit a larger number of > >>>>> contributing > >>>>> founding members rather than selling the whole package to Autodesk. > >>>>> It's not easy to undo that; the Foundation is clearly already > >>>>> seen as an > >>>>> Autodesk initiative by the press (in part because Autodesk has > >>>>> tried to > >>>>> make that point clear) and not many firms are interested in > >>>>> throwing > >>>>> money at Autodesk - they've got more of it than I do. > >>>>> My second huge concern is the branding/product lineup for the > >>>>> Foundation. I woke up this morning to two MapServers where we > >>>>> had one > >>>>> before. One of them has the impressive-sounding name "MapServer > >>>>> Enterprise" while the other is currently named after a large > >>>>> pussycat > >>>>> but may or may not be open to the possibility of being named > >>>>> after a > >>>>> different mammal. There's no doubt in the potential customer's > >>>>> mind > >>>>> which one is the grown-up, field-tested, production-ready, > >>>>> scalable, > >>>>> capable system. Unfortunately, they're thinking of the wrong one. > >>>>> Branding really matters. It's very important. Tyler Mitchell > >>>>> says so, > >>>>> too, on the new MapServer site. Autodesk has zillions of people > >>>>> who > >>>>> know that very, very well. They just bought a great brand and > >>>>> MapServer > >>>>> suddenly managed to take a back seat to itself, something I > >>>>> would have > >>>>> thought anatomically impossible. They've managed to appropriate a > >>>>> well-respected brand name and take center stage with it. > >>>>> Autodesk's > >>>>> press release takes advantage of that ambiguity by introducing > >>>>> Steve > >>>>> Lime as the "creator of MapServer" without saying which one they're > >>>>> talking about! Speaking of press releases, in an effort like > >>>>> this it is > >>>>> common for all founding members to see and sign off on each other's > >>>>> press releases in advance, something which appears (from some > >>>>> developer > >>>>> comments) to not have happened here. This is PR 101 stuff - if you > >>>>> don't try to keep what you're doing a secret, you might get helpful > >>>>> advice. > >>>>> The same is true, by the way, about the questions raised on > >>>>> Autodesk's > >>>>> patent policy. This should NOT be an open question *after* the > >>>>> announcement - Autodesk's patent portfolio and their defense of > >>>>> it are > >>>>> well-known. It should have been one of the first questions > >>>>> raised and > >>>>> answered. Once the Foundation's plans were made public it only > >>>>> took a > >>>>> few hours to bring it to everyone's attention - remember the > >>>>> benefits of > >>>>> open development? > >>>>> The "MapServer Enterprise" product just got inserted into the > >>>>> MapServer > >>>>> family by decree. Customers know very well that when they see two > >>>>> similar products side-by-side, usually due to a merger or > >>>>> acquisition, > >>>>> they sit back and wait to see which one gets killed off. This > >>>>> usually > >>>>> has the effect of discouraging adoption of BOTH products, because > >>>>> customers don't know which one to implement and don't want to > >>>>> make the > >>>>> wrong choice. Believe me, I've been a CTO standing up in front of > >>>>> customers in that situation more than once - they don't believe > >>>>> you can > >>>>> serve two masters, and they're right. > >>>>> Does the Apache Foundation offer two Web servers? Apache > >>>>> Enterprise and > >>>>> Apache Other? > >>>>> Can't kill off MapServer, you say? Perhaps not in a technical > >>>>> sense, > >>>>> but if there's a MapServer Foundation and a MapServer > >>>>> Enterprise, who's > >>>>> going to notice if that other thingy doesn't get the same amount of > >>>>> attention? Perhaps the platypus is indeed a good choice, as it may > >>>>> belong with the nearly-extinct monotremes. You can't kill the > >>>>> MapServer > >>>>> code, but you can certainly kill the brand. Please don't > >>>>> confuse the > >>>>> two. > >>>>> Why was the Foundation "announced" when it apparently doesn't > >>>>> actually > >>>>> exist? It seems like today's announcement was designed > >>>>> primarily to > >>>>> maximize the PR value to DM Solutions and Autodesk - after all, the > >>>>> press got briefed about it before the rest of us did. As far as > >>>>> I can > >>>>> tell, there isn't any foundation, but when we get one it's going > >>>>> to be > >>>>> great and open to all, because DM Solutions and UMN and Autodesk > >>>>> have > >>>>> all assured each other that it will be. Each time I hear that > >>>>> "now's > >>>>> the time to participate", I cringe because I'm being told that > >>>>> by the > >>>>> exclusive group who deliberately prevented all of us from > >>>>> participating > >>>>> until they decided they had gotten what they needed out of it > >>>>> and it's > >>>>> now OK to let the rest of us inside. The time to participate > >>>>> was last > >>>>> week, or last month, before anything got announced and before we > >>>>> were > >>>>> all handed the Foundation. If the Foundation is really a > >>>>> genuinely open > >>>>> opportunity for us, then tell us that the inclusion of Autodesk's > >>>>> product isn't non-negotiable. Do the rest of us get to insert > >>>>> MapServer-branded products whenever we want to? > >>>>> All of these problems were preventable. All it would have taken > >>>>> was an > >>>>> open discussion of the proposal. You get a lot of people > >>>>> spouting off, > >>>>> and then you find out who's really interested. You find out how > >>>>> many > >>>>> commercial sponsors you can get and at what level of support. You > >>>>> create what appears to the public as a truly open consortium that's > >>>>> worth watching, instead of one that triggers discussions about > >>>>> Autodesk. > >>>>> You demonstrate right from the start that you have a broad base of > >>>>> commercial support, with commercial firms from the USA, Canada, > >>>>> Europe, > >>>>> South America, Australia, etc. What was the perceived benefit of > >>>>> keeping the process secret and exclusive? Did someone threaten > >>>>> to pick > >>>>> up their marbles and go home? You can often be surprised at how > >>>>> many > >>>>> folks are willing to contribute their own marbles when something > >>>>> like > >>>>> that happens - but you never know until you ask. > >>>>> The MapServer community really needs a Foundation to support it > >>>>> and to > >>>>> keep the product healthy and growing. There are many examples > >>>>> of the > >>>>> creation of such consortia to draw from, both inside of and > >>>>> outside of > >>>>> the Open Source community. It doesn't appear those examples were > >>>>> considered. We really need a MapServer Foundation - I'm not at > >>>>> all sure > >>>>> that we need this one. > > > > > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > |Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > |Applications & Software Development | > > |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/| > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > -- > Gerry Creager -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578 > Page: 979.228.0173 > Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 >
