Hi Board and All
Firstly, thank you to the Board for listening and acting on community
concerns.
In the last 3 months it has been an opportunity to re-examine what is
important to me about our community, and it has been a risk to voice my
concerns, but I felt it was important not to sit back. In this time, my
opinions have matured, and in some parts, surprisingly changed as the logic
of arguments are examined. I feel most of this has occurred based on a
single company and our feelings to it fed by each of our experiences - from
both sides. That has in turn asked us to examine the overall issue of
sponsorship: what is fair, and how we are asked to accept those that we
would not expect to be included. Whilst it has been grating, it has given
us the parameters to ask those financially supporting our community, at
least those new to the community, to rethink how they approach and thrive
within it.
*1) My feedback to this document:*
1.1.) re
*Background pt3 *
1.1.1) re: *Some believe corporate sponsorship, especially from
proprietary software companies like Esri, could undermine the open-source
values and dilute the conference's purpose. *I don't recall corporate
sponsorship being an issue and I don't think the fact they were proprietary
software was the problem here either ( - happy to be corrected -) . It
was *specifically
*the company's reputation and actions (prior and during the conference)
that were called into question - the remedy here is to remove the word
'proprietary' from this sentence and the idea that corporate sponsorship
was a problem. BTW - this is a learning experience and a testament to the
success of Open Source that companies that offer proprietary software now
rely on open source resources. However, it should be recognised that
proprietary software co-exists well in the open source sphere. There are no
longer clear lines as people make their living within the ecosystem of both
- see my pt 1.3.1 below
1.1.2) re: *pt3. Clarifications on Sponsorship Intentions* I was a
member of the LOC. I felt that there was not enough discussion where the
committee member's concerns were heard and considered. I did indicate I was
not happy at having them as a sponsor but it was presented as the decision
had been made and they were coming under OSM. However, there was no
evidential OSM promotion in their actions nor on their table. I believe
this will be addressed in the LOC Sponsorship considerations. I recommend
that this document is presented to the community through this mailing list
as soon as possible in order to exhibit how they are working towards a
remedy to our concerns. Feedback should also be requested for it.
1.2) re *1.The Role of sponsorship in our community *- I felt that their
OSM role was not clearly promoted by them and their presence at the
conference was more about ESRI software rather than their support of OSM.
This is not the ethical behaviour expected of OSM partners and it did not
meet expectations. I believe this is being addressed in the LOC
Sponsorship considerations.
1.3) re *2. Addressing concerns about influence and community integrity*
1.3.1) re: *Our intention has never been to allow corporate
sponsorship to overshadow the core mission of FOSS4G or diminish the
contributions of our grassroots community.* I think we need to understand
here that our community is maturing and yes, we are getting more companies
that work within the FOSS4G sphere. We should welcome corporate sponsorship
if they are ethically good FOSS4G organisations. We should be singing their
praises to the roof and they should be showing how they are contributing
and thriving with FOSS4G so they can guide others on the benefits of using
and supporting FOSS4G.
1.3.2) re: *...we understand the community's desire to maintain a
clear distinction between support and influence.* You've hit the nail on
the head here. This is a great option and perhaps it should be ensured that
events such as the TPG breakfast and Committee Dinner are sponsor free. The
intention should be that the conference attendee seeks to learn more about
the sponsor and directs their own personal involvement with any future
influence by the sponsor. So essentially, they buy in, rather than an
aggressive marketing activity. It should be passive and the sponsor needs
to 'earn' the respect of the attendee. I believe this is being addressed
in the LOC Sponsorship considerations.
1.4) re 4. *Next Steps and Future Sponsorship Approach*
1.4.1) I would also ensure there is a strict cut-off date for funds
to be delivered before sponsors are announced or put on branding, as
evident from public communications, it seems that since the conference, it
appears the ESRI sponsorship via OSM has not been paid (not sure if this is
OSM or ESRI) and therefore, this should be considered as a risk to OO and
future conferences.
1.4.2) re: *Consider the design and trial the creation of different
streams of presentations to accommodate different types of audiences and
sponsors, while remaining focused on benefits and outcomes for the open
source community of developers and users. * I am not sure how those who do
the program have NOT done this - as previous program chair of some years, I
can give some insight here. Sponsors, if they have a presentation, have to
go through the same process as presenters and their topic, rather than
their status has been considered. Given that OO has only had 2 streams for
the conference in person since covid (apart from Fiji), the streams have
been carefully curated to deliver to different types of audiences. Topics
and audiences are always considered, but we have never directed what those
topics are - it has always been an organic curation of the program,
influenced by talks that complement each other. It takes a team of diverse
people, usually over a couple of days per draft of the program, to curate
it.
*2) Additional feedback to the situation*
2.1) As a remedy, before I resigned from the current LOC, I proposed a
policy for sponsorship considerations and actions. I believe this is still
in discussion and will go somewhat to assist companies in guiding their
expected role at FOSS4G to meet the requirements of the community, to be
respectful of the community and other sponsors - i.e. promote their FOSS4G
credentials rather than treating the event as a selling activity. Again, I
encourage this document to be presented to this list for feedback.
Kind regards
Em
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 4:37 PM Ewen Hill via Oceania <
oceania@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Firstly, thank you to Andrew Jeffrey and everyone who replied to this
> thread and provided feedback.
>
> The OSGeo Oceania Board has provided their considered response at
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WdENOJMYDr0Rltt4MZtvqyZEcjR9XQV6/view?usp=drive_link
> and we welcome feedback via this list.
>
> --
> Yours eye
>
> Ewen Hill
> Chair
> OSGeo Oceania
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oceania mailing list
> Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
>
_______________________________________________
Oceania mailing list
Oceania@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania
