Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk

[Ed McNierney]

Gary -   You seem to be deliberately overlooking the rather obvious solution of removing the word "MapServer" from the Foundation's name.  If one were to steal an idea from Tyler's editors and call it the "Web Mapping Foundation", then many of the issues you describe below would go away, wouldn't they?  The "WMF MapServer" and "WMF MapGuide" products are both members of the WMF product family as much as a MapServer Enterprise and MapServer Cheetah are members of the MapServer product family, aren't they?  I'm not trying to lobby for that particular name, but rather to point out another route to a solution.   I guess that means I'd vote for (c).        - Ed Ed McNierney President and Chief Mapmaker TopoZone.com / Maps a la carte, Inc. 73 Princeton Street, Suite 305 North Chelmsford, MA  01863 Phone: +1 (978) 251-4242 Fax: +1 (978) 251-1396 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Lang Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:50 PM To: MAPSERVER-USERS@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Poll: MapServer and Autodesk Below is a note that Tyler Mitchell and I put together to help describe some of  the 'open letter' groups' thinking around the name issue.  There is also a new POLL related to it - please vote when you have a minute.  It will be very helpful to measuring peoples' opinions.   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk   At the end of this message is a poll for you to vote on.   Those of us that signed the open letter may not have laid out exactly what it meant to us to have a shared name brand.  This note is an attempt lay out those reasons clearly, so we all understand why we thought it was important to share name brands.   Each of us knew that: * MapServer has had a good history, significant market share and has good equity in its name.  * Autodesk is a very successful company, with successful products and has significant amounts of brand equity * Autodesk were planning to release "Tux" as open source and continue to develop it through an open source community   Autodesk had a choice to make: a) offer to work with MapServer to find common ground, to build synergies and not compete; or, b) set up their own open source geospatial software foundation as a home for their product, develop their own independent branding for their product and end up competing with MapServer.   In the spirit of open source, Autodesk engaged DM Solutions, UMN, Steve Lime and other developers, etc. to try to find a way to work together. Granted, it was behind closed doors because an NDA was required for a public company like Autodesk to even have such a conversation with outsiders, but we thought we had a very good representation of the leaders in the community.   Our collective thinking was that a common name for the products would be ideal.  Having both products under the same banner was good, but only if both products and the foundation could share that common name.  There was going to be potential for confusion, but sharing a common prefix for two different products is not unheard of and it was going to be a major change. We all wanted to keep building on MapServer momentum instead of ignoring MapServer and building something independent of it.   After all the feedback from the community, it's more than obvious that the naming is an major issue.  But the naming of both the products really represents the willingness to share the brand or not.  A "MapServer Foundation" cannot equally represent both MapServer and MapGuide.  The names are the brand.  If a product can't use the name, then it isn't using the brand.    Autodesk decided that it would rather take the harder road and work with an existing community, than go it alone and work against that community. And the MapServer stakeholders decided they would take the hard road and work with Autodesk to find a common path, rather then compete head-to-head.   Then the story broke, and the MapServer community had the reaction we all saw to the name. The general reaction to the announcement outside of the MapServer community has actually been quite positive.   If a common name brand can't be used, then one alternative will be that MapServer is not going to be leading the startup of a foundation that can house both MapServer and Tux.  As well, such a foundation can not be called the "MapServer Foundation" any more than it should be called the "MapGuide Foundation".  In many ways, voting against sharing the name brand is actually voting against working with Autodesk on starting the MapServer Foundation. Autodesk will not be willing to put their investment into a foundation that hides their name brand under the name of another web-based mapping project. It has already invested a lot of money in promoting the "MapServer Foundation", which no one else has ever done.   So this was the thinking and these are the choices.  We didn't do it all perfectly and not having broader community input was a real problem. I wish that we could have put the following question out there for community feedback from the very start.   Here is the poll question, please cast your vote and comment on the poll online at:   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/community/polls/ms_autodesk   -------------   What serves the MapServer Community best?   a) Work with Autodesk under the MapServer Foundation, creating a unified brand name, with MapServer and Autodesk lending their respective brand equities to each other and working together to make open source web mapping the platform of choice.   b) Work with Autodesk to release its product through a foundation with a different name such as "MapTools", with MapServer now competing directly with the new brand name that will be created and heavily promoted by Autodesk, even though they will likely be housed by the same foundation.   Gary Lang Tyler Mitchell