Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
What about speeding OSGeo incubation in a way, that projects, who made it through locationtech, would have to work only at the differences between both incubations, afaik the community aspect and maybe something else, in order to make it to OSGeo project? It would be more easy for them to make it through OSGeo incubation, things would be speeding up a bit I'm I completely wrong? Jachym Send from cellphone -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org On Sep 15, 2014 7:55 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Good questions/discussion: Going to chime in as I enjoy both working with OSGeo incubation and LocationTech. I am a couple timezones west of Daniel but sleep is on the horizon. TLDR: I am not 100% positive of either organisation, which is why I am trying to make them better. -- Jody Garnett On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch wrote: As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. Agreed, and I was very heartened by aspects of foss4g this year. Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do differently with respect to osgeo? A lot of questions :) The two organisations share the same goals, but have different talents with respect to outreach. I am going to try and do a single Pro/Con for each organisation just so you can see how they differ. I suspect this is a better conversation over beer or coffee since I cannot tell what kind of differences you are interested in? OSGeo Incubation Pro: OSGeo incubation has the advantage of being less formal, and thus able to adapt to the needs of the projects in incubation today. This message gets lots repeatedly, which makes me a bit sad. I usually pick on my own projects, but perhaps the pycsw crew would not mind being used as an example. We have an checklist item about user / developer interaction, with an example provided of user list collaboration around releases. This example is dated and does not fit with an amazing aspect of the pycsw story - pycsw have great downstream projects fulfilling this role (risk mitigation around release based on bug reports, testing, collaboration). OSGeo incubation has the flexibility to recognise this value ... and get on with life. Con: OSGeo incubation has a look but don't touch attitude - we like to leave projects as we found them and not disturb the way each projects is already functioning. This is great low impact approach for when we were taking on fully-fored projects like MapServer, MapGuide and PostGIS. What could possibly be the drawback? We are not in position to offer much guidance to organisations that are new to open source struggling to know where to start. Contrast: We are great at reviewing project viability to try and protect OSGeo users from adopting projects that have gone stale. LocationTech Incubation Pro: LocationTech is a working group in an already established Software Foundation. They have a long history of teaching new projects how to do OpenSource. Many of the conventions we work with in our open source projects (voting +1 to accept a new committer on a project) have been automated into a developer portal. This structure can help those new to open source feel confidence they are doing it right. Cons: The workload associated with checking License/Headers is both harder and easier then OSGeo. There are staff to do the checking, but you need to submit each thing you depend on - even down to the build tools used to compile, build diagrams or generate docs. While I can kind of respect this (protecting potential developers from needing to purchase tools) was not prepared for the workload. Contrast: Eclipse incubation does not say much about if a project is stale. does it somehow overlap with incubation or not? What are the distinctive features? There is an overlap, but differences: * A project graduating out of OSGeo ...would have to do a formal IP check to graduate out of LocationTech. There is paid staff to do the work, but it is still a lot of work to submit all the code. I think there is like a TM check and other stuff. Lots of work, with some assistance on offer. * A project graduating out of LocationTech ... would have to do organisation viability, documentation checks, user/developer collaboration and similar. Soft concerns but hard to do. They also have a similar issue: projects are (quite rightly) more focused on the next release and any publicity .. then actually completing incubation. Personally I wonder why some of the most eminent person of osgeo (like you) decided to work into location teach? Don't misunderstood me, I'm not judging nor criticizing, I'd just like to understand opportunities or
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Not only is that a great idea Jachym - it is already happening. MarbleGIS works with kde.org and had an easier go of OSGeo incubation as a result. KDE is very strict about headers - so they were in good shape. KDE had some policies to follow, so many of our questions about how the project was run were easy to answer with a hyperlink. So Marble GIS was able to use their experience with one fountain to have an head start at OSGeo Incubation. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: What about speeding OSGeo incubation in a way, that projects, who made it through locationtech, would have to work only at the differences between both incubations, afaik the community aspect and maybe something else, in order to make it to OSGeo project? It would be more easy for them to make it through OSGeo incubation, things would be speeding up a bit I'm I completely wrong? Jachym Send from cellphone -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org On Sep 15, 2014 7:55 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Good questions/discussion: Going to chime in as I enjoy both working with OSGeo incubation and LocationTech. I am a couple timezones west of Daniel but sleep is on the horizon. TLDR: I am not 100% positive of either organisation, which is why I am trying to make them better. -- Jody Garnett On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch wrote: As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. Agreed, and I was very heartened by aspects of foss4g this year. Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do differently with respect to osgeo? A lot of questions :) The two organisations share the same goals, but have different talents with respect to outreach. I am going to try and do a single Pro/Con for each organisation just so you can see how they differ. I suspect this is a better conversation over beer or coffee since I cannot tell what kind of differences you are interested in? OSGeo Incubation Pro: OSGeo incubation has the advantage of being less formal, and thus able to adapt to the needs of the projects in incubation today. This message gets lots repeatedly, which makes me a bit sad. I usually pick on my own projects, but perhaps the pycsw crew would not mind being used as an example. We have an checklist item about user / developer interaction, with an example provided of user list collaboration around releases. This example is dated and does not fit with an amazing aspect of the pycsw story - pycsw have great downstream projects fulfilling this role (risk mitigation around release based on bug reports, testing, collaboration). OSGeo incubation has the flexibility to recognise this value ... and get on with life. Con: OSGeo incubation has a look but don't touch attitude - we like to leave projects as we found them and not disturb the way each projects is already functioning. This is great low impact approach for when we were taking on fully-fored projects like MapServer, MapGuide and PostGIS. What could possibly be the drawback? We are not in position to offer much guidance to organisations that are new to open source struggling to know where to start. Contrast: We are great at reviewing project viability to try and protect OSGeo users from adopting projects that have gone stale. LocationTech Incubation Pro: LocationTech is a working group in an already established Software Foundation. They have a long history of teaching new projects how to do OpenSource. Many of the conventions we work with in our open source projects (voting +1 to accept a new committer on a project) have been automated into a developer portal. This structure can help those new to open source feel confidence they are doing it right. Cons: The workload associated with checking License/Headers is both harder and easier then OSGeo. There are staff to do the checking, but you need to submit each thing you depend on - even down to the build tools used to compile, build diagrams or generate docs. While I can kind of respect this (protecting potential developers from needing to purchase tools) was not prepared for the workload. Contrast: Eclipse incubation does not say much about if a project is stale. does it somehow overlap with incubation or not? What are the distinctive features? There is an overlap, but differences: * A project graduating out of OSGeo ...would have to do a formal IP check to graduate out of LocationTech. There is paid staff to do the work, but it is still a lot of work to submit all the code. I think there is like a TM check and other stuff. Lots of work, with some assistance on offer.
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
nice, so if I correctly interpret your recommended path would be: 1) apply to LocationTech (which is faster then OSGeo incubation) and then 2) when passed apply also to become an OSGeo project Some FOSS4G projects are GPL... (I think of GRASS for example), what these project should do as, if I correctly understand, GPL is not welcome at locationtech? Follow the OSGeo incubation only? Maxi 2014-09-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com: Not only is that a great idea Jachym - it is already happening. MarbleGIS works with kde.org and had an easier go of OSGeo incubation as a result. KDE is very strict about headers - so they were in good shape. KDE had some policies to follow, so many of our questions about how the project was run were easy to answer with a hyperlink. So Marble GIS was able to use their experience with one fountain to have an head start at OSGeo Incubation. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: What about speeding OSGeo incubation in a way, that projects, who made it through locationtech, would have to work only at the differences between both incubations, afaik the community aspect and maybe something else, in order to make it to OSGeo project? It would be more easy for them to make it through OSGeo incubation, things would be speeding up a bit I'm I completely wrong? Jachym Send from cellphone -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org On Sep 15, 2014 7:55 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Good questions/discussion: Going to chime in as I enjoy both working with OSGeo incubation and LocationTech. I am a couple timezones west of Daniel but sleep is on the horizon. TLDR: I am not 100% positive of either organisation, which is why I am trying to make them better. -- Jody Garnett On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch wrote: As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. Agreed, and I was very heartened by aspects of foss4g this year. Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do differently with respect to osgeo? A lot of questions :) The two organisations share the same goals, but have different talents with respect to outreach. I am going to try and do a single Pro/Con for each organisation just so you can see how they differ. I suspect this is a better conversation over beer or coffee since I cannot tell what kind of differences you are interested in? OSGeo Incubation Pro: OSGeo incubation has the advantage of being less formal, and thus able to adapt to the needs of the projects in incubation today. This message gets lots repeatedly, which makes me a bit sad. I usually pick on my own projects, but perhaps the pycsw crew would not mind being used as an example. We have an checklist item about user / developer interaction, with an example provided of user list collaboration around releases. This example is dated and does not fit with an amazing aspect of the pycsw story - pycsw have great downstream projects fulfilling this role (risk mitigation around release based on bug reports, testing, collaboration). OSGeo incubation has the flexibility to recognise this value ... and get on with life. Con: OSGeo incubation has a look but don't touch attitude - we like to leave projects as we found them and not disturb the way each projects is already functioning. This is great low impact approach for when we were taking on fully-fored projects like MapServer, MapGuide and PostGIS. What could possibly be the drawback? We are not in position to offer much guidance to organisations that are new to open source struggling to know where to start. Contrast: We are great at reviewing project viability to try and protect OSGeo users from adopting projects that have gone stale. LocationTech Incubation Pro: LocationTech is a working group in an already established Software Foundation. They have a long history of teaching new projects how to do OpenSource. Many of the conventions we work with in our open source projects (voting +1 to accept a new committer on a project) have been automated into a developer portal. This structure can help those new to open source feel confidence they are doing it right. Cons: The workload associated with checking License/Headers is both harder and easier then OSGeo. There are staff to do the checking, but you need to submit each thing you depend on - even down to the build tools used to compile, build diagrams or generate docs. While I can kind of respect this (protecting potential developers from needing to purchase tools) was not prepared for the workload. Contrast: Eclipse
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi Maxi, All, You raise an excellent question and the answer varies depending on what one is looking for. This whole discussion should help understand why both organizations are complementary and not really competing that much. Jody and Rob already pointed out some similarities and differences related to software projects and incubation so I won't touch on that. In my case, the motivation to get involved with LocationTech is for the business aspect: I am a citizen of both the software developer community (with MapServer, GDAL, etc.) and the business community (with Mapgears), and while OSGeo does a great job for the software community, it is lacking on the business side and I see hope in what LocationTech is trying to build. Why two orgs you'll ask? Can't OSGeo do it all? Can't LocationTech do it all? I don't think a single organization can address all the needs of all people. So diversity is good and allows different orgs to have different and complementary priorities and strengths, and if those orgs work together on the parts that overlap that will be in the best interest of the overall community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who care about free/open source geo software. So what's different in LocationTech? My opinion is that the main differences between the two orgs start with their different structure and history: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses. This leads to setting the priorities differently and using different approaches to reach the same goal of supporting open source software. Essentially the result is that today OSGeo is more community oriented, and LocationTech is more business-oriented. Before someone says that I'm over-generalizing, I know that OSGeo has many businesses revolving around it (including Mapgears, and we're not going anyway), and LocationTech has project committers reps on its board, so both are not purely black or white. But the core of each org is very different, we need to recognize that and work on those strenghts. BTW, on a side note, 8 years ago I would have said that OSGeo is software-project-driven, but I seem to have noticed a shift over the years towards education and community. Not that this is a problem or that projects are less important than they used to be, but just that the membership has grown with more community and academic people than software people, and that resulted in a small shift of priorities. Maybe it's also that software projects have a bit less needs now that their basic needs are served, and the next challenges are on the education and community side? I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all (quite the contrary), just pointing out that this shift is happening and as part of the evolution of our organizations (OSGeo, LocationTech and others) other shifts are to be expected over the coming years. Back to OSGeo vs LocationTech: both approaches have their pros and cons, and no one is better than the other, they are complementary and LocationTech aims to fill a void for businesses that OSGeo could not address well due to its nature. Having both is a good thing, and if they can find a way to cooperate efficiently then we all win. Having two orgs doesn't mean that people or projects need to choose a camp. I believe projects could incubate under both orgs to reach their different communities as others pointed out already, but that should not be a requirement, and it is also perfectly fine for individuals to play on both fronts as I, Jody and a few others do. For instance in my case as I wrote already, I am in OSGeo for the software developer network that it provides me, and in LocationTech for the business network that it is aiming to build. For those who still don't see the complementarity between OSGeo and LocationTech after reading the multiple replies in this thread, think of the coo-petition between MapServer, GeoServer and Mapnik, or between OpenLayers and Leaflet. That kind of diversity is good and we treat it as friendly coo-petition (or most of us do anyway), and it leads to faster evolution, and many users use all of the above on different days / different projects depending on the specific needs/features they are looking for. Open Source doesn't force you to choose a camp, you just use the best tool for the task you are working on at a given time. Why could it not be the same with OSGeo vs LocationTech as coo-peting orgs addressing different needs? Daniel P.S. FWIW, I am not going away from OSGeo, I plan to continue to be involved in both OSGeo and LocationTech since they both serve different needs for me. On 14-09-14 6:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote: As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do differently with respect to osgeo?
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Daniel, I would see this similarly, thanks J Send from cellphone -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org On Sep 15, 2014 6:31 PM, Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote: Hi Maxi, All, You raise an excellent question and the answer varies depending on what one is looking for. This whole discussion should help understand why both organizations are complementary and not really competing that much. Jody and Rob already pointed out some similarities and differences related to software projects and incubation so I won't touch on that. In my case, the motivation to get involved with LocationTech is for the business aspect: I am a citizen of both the software developer community (with MapServer, GDAL, etc.) and the business community (with Mapgears), and while OSGeo does a great job for the software community, it is lacking on the business side and I see hope in what LocationTech is trying to build. Why two orgs you'll ask? Can't OSGeo do it all? Can't LocationTech do it all? I don't think a single organization can address all the needs of all people. So diversity is good and allows different orgs to have different and complementary priorities and strengths, and if those orgs work together on the parts that overlap that will be in the best interest of the overall community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who care about free/open source geo software. So what's different in LocationTech? My opinion is that the main differences between the two orgs start with their different structure and history: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses. This leads to setting the priorities differently and using different approaches to reach the same goal of supporting open source software. Essentially the result is that today OSGeo is more community oriented, and LocationTech is more business-oriented. Before someone says that I'm over-generalizing, I know that OSGeo has many businesses revolving around it (including Mapgears, and we're not going anyway), and LocationTech has project committers reps on its board, so both are not purely black or white. But the core of each org is very different, we need to recognize that and work on those strenghts. BTW, on a side note, 8 years ago I would have said that OSGeo is software-project-driven, but I seem to have noticed a shift over the years towards education and community. Not that this is a problem or that projects are less important than they used to be, but just that the membership has grown with more community and academic people than software people, and that resulted in a small shift of priorities. Maybe it's also that software projects have a bit less needs now that their basic needs are served, and the next challenges are on the education and community side? I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all (quite the contrary), just pointing out that this shift is happening and as part of the evolution of our organizations (OSGeo, LocationTech and others) other shifts are to be expected over the coming years. Back to OSGeo vs LocationTech: both approaches have their pros and cons, and no one is better than the other, they are complementary and LocationTech aims to fill a void for businesses that OSGeo could not address well due to its nature. Having both is a good thing, and if they can find a way to cooperate efficiently then we all win. Having two orgs doesn't mean that people or projects need to choose a camp. I believe projects could incubate under both orgs to reach their different communities as others pointed out already, but that should not be a requirement, and it is also perfectly fine for individuals to play on both fronts as I, Jody and a few others do. For instance in my case as I wrote already, I am in OSGeo for the software developer network that it provides me, and in LocationTech for the business network that it is aiming to build. For those who still don't see the complementarity between OSGeo and LocationTech after reading the multiple replies in this thread, think of the coo-petition between MapServer, GeoServer and Mapnik, or between OpenLayers and Leaflet. That kind of diversity is good and we treat it as friendly coo-petition (or most of us do anyway), and it leads to faster evolution, and many users use all of the above on different days / different projects depending on the specific needs/features they are looking for. Open Source doesn't force you to choose a camp, you just use the best tool for the task you are working on at a given time. Why could it not be the same with OSGeo vs LocationTech as coo-peting orgs addressing different needs? Daniel P.S. FWIW, I am not going away from OSGeo, I plan to continue to be involved in both OSGeo and LocationTech since
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Crap - I guess this means I better set up another incubation committee meeting :) There was a great talk at foss4g about burnout (anyone got a link?). I always try and respect the volunteers I am working with ... Rant: Please remember that YOU are a volunteer you are working with, respect your time appropriately. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Jody, your response is perfect. I do get upset too often (or actually, I take quite a lot, but eventually am set off). I apologize for this, I will try to be better. I am slowly improving. But I could be better. To get myself back on track, I decided a few minutes ago (mentioned on the Board list) by doing some little things for OSGeo right now. And you'll be happy to hear that one of them is Incubation-related: give a push with the pycsw team for the next steps (code review etc), as I am their mentor. Thanks again for being the voice of reason Jody. Let's all do as Jody says, and I am sure these tricky points will work themselves out. -jeff On 2014-09-15 4:57 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: Well I don't like you get upset Jeff, you are correct that patches speak louder than emails. If I could put a plug in for the incubation committee - we would really love some more volunteers. We have a couple projects waiting to get in and all we need is a mentor to be a friendly voice/email contact. The stuff we do at OSGeo can be very intimidating (starting a steering committee - gasp!) or require sensitivity (trade mark conflict). Having a mentor to email or Skype can be of great assistance. -- Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Why is there this sudden need to point out things like this? This is the part that makes my heart drop. (and the underlying meaning of the subject of this email) Instead of pointing out issues, maybe those making these noises can spend that time on the marketing committee, or tackling on the membership issue. I personally have no problem with LocationTech, in fact I agree they play a very important role for businesses. I do have a problem however with pointing out problems with OSGeo and our baby, FOSS4G; instead of pointing out problems, I feel those same people could be diving into helping OSGeo grow and pick up the ball themselves. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:56 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Why is this not true? I think you are misinterpreting here Jeff. Membership in OSGeo is a single person. Yes this person can belong to a company or run their own company, but membership is still personal. Bart Sent from my iPhone On 15 sep. 2014, at 19:45, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com__ wrote: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ 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
[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Organizing
I have two contradictory positions wrt LocationTech and event organizing, and I’ll start with this one, since it’s easier: as long as the organizations are separate, I think that OSGeo should maintain its own brand and use a professional organizer that is 100% dedicated to OSGeo without any conflicts of interest, perceived or otherwise. There are a number of places to start in finding such a corporate partner for event planning. An obvious thing to do would be to look at other successful international technology events in our space and who organizes them. http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/organizers/conference_organizer_contacts.html https://us.pycon.org/2014/about/staff/ http://events.linuxfoundation.org/#event-services If nothing else, folks at those organizations could refer us to other companies we may not have heard to so we could run a real competition for our business. Since getting involved in a commercial relationship like this is a big, existential decision for the organization, I think it falls to the board to decide (a) if moving to a single professional event organizer for all major foss4g events (international, na, eu) is warranted (b) if so, assigning a small team to speak with the alternatives, and bring a concrete decision in the form of a recommended company and contract terms to the board It is important to get a decision on (a) as quickly as possible, as the venue decision for 2016 will have to be made and which organizing principle it falls under is important to establish sooner than later. P. -- Paul Ramsey http://cleverelephant.ca http://postgis.net___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Kathleen Danielson's talk can be found here: http://kathleen.getcourse.com/embed.html?course=74708aa8-d180-4482-bdff-da740e27eec9#/ Recorded sessions aren't up yet, but I know Darrell is working on it. -k.bott On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Crap - I guess this means I better set up another incubation committee meeting :) There was a great talk at foss4g about burnout (anyone got a link?). I always try and respect the volunteers I am working with ... Rant: Please remember that YOU are a volunteer you are working with, respect your time appropriately. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Jody, your response is perfect. I do get upset too often (or actually, I take quite a lot, but eventually am set off). I apologize for this, I will try to be better. I am slowly improving. But I could be better. To get myself back on track, I decided a few minutes ago (mentioned on the Board list) by doing some little things for OSGeo right now. And you'll be happy to hear that one of them is Incubation-related: give a push with the pycsw team for the next steps (code review etc), as I am their mentor. Thanks again for being the voice of reason Jody. Let's all do as Jody says, and I am sure these tricky points will work themselves out. -jeff On 2014-09-15 4:57 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: Well I don't like you get upset Jeff, you are correct that patches speak louder than emails. If I could put a plug in for the incubation committee - we would really love some more volunteers. We have a couple projects waiting to get in and all we need is a mentor to be a friendly voice/email contact. The stuff we do at OSGeo can be very intimidating (starting a steering committee - gasp!) or require sensitivity (trade mark conflict). Having a mentor to email or Skype can be of great assistance. -- Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Why is there this sudden need to point out things like this? This is the part that makes my heart drop. (and the underlying meaning of the subject of this email) Instead of pointing out issues, maybe those making these noises can spend that time on the marketing committee, or tackling on the membership issue. I personally have no problem with LocationTech, in fact I agree they play a very important role for businesses. I do have a problem however with pointing out problems with OSGeo and our baby, FOSS4G; instead of pointing out problems, I feel those same people could be diving into helping OSGeo grow and pick up the ball themselves. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:56 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Why is this not true? I think you are misinterpreting here Jeff. Membership in OSGeo is a single person. Yes this person can belong to a company or run their own company, but membership is still personal. Bart Sent from my iPhone On 15 sep. 2014, at 19:45, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com__ wrote: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ 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 -- Kristin Bott Instructional Technologist / Quantitative Applications Instructional Technology Services (ITS) Reed College ETC 225 503/788-6642 bo...@reed.edu ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Good questions Rich. I had never heard of LocationTech until this discussion started, which indicates to me how removed I am from this discussion (and general OSGeo day-to-day admin/affairs). Nevertheless, seems like everything is sorted out and everyone is happy. Let's get back to coding and making great apps. On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Richard Greenwood richard.greenw...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this way in LocationTech. Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right? Cheers. Arnulf Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Richard W. Greenwood, PLS www.greenwoodmap.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor Manager, Science and Data Policy Creative Commons ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
On 9/16/2014 10:48 AM, Richard Greenwood wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Very pertinent questions form Rich. I hope we will receive some lucid answers. Best Venka Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this way in LocationTech. Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right? Cheers. Arnulf Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ 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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
I guess the quick answer is that the Eclipse Foundation is not new :) You can watch a lots of organisations starting to take on location as GIS goes more mainstream. OGC is working with W3C, Eclipse has LocationTech, Apache has a spatial information systems group. Personally I think using the word SpatialIT or Location or spatial isn't special is part of the the rest of IT catching up with us in the GIS industry. I am really keen to see the big data players starting to working with location - as they represent one of the first IT groups that do not run away scared at our data volumes :) I had expected the BI crowd to make an impact earlier, but they got distracted by big data. I have not managed to figure out where the internet of things is going to intersect with mapping - but I saw a great talk at FOSS4G 2013, and it was a hot topic at a couple other conferences I have attended. I expect the Board was aware or contacted, but the interesting thing is how to best serve as part of this larger trend. -- Jody I touched Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Richard Greenwood richard.greenw...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this way in LocationTech. Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right? Cheers. Arnulf Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Richard W. Greenwood, PLS www.greenwoodmap.com ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Short term answer is that there was a bit http://www.eclipse.org/org/press-release/20130205_ef_enables_locationtech.php of http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/locationtech-the-next-step-for-the-open-source-geospatial-software-com/308459 publicity http://www.geospatialworld.net/Professional/ViewBlog.aspx?id=274 when http://slashgeo.org/2013/02/08/LocationTech-Initiative-Launched-Eclipse-Foundation LocationTech was launched. I wrote a couple of blogs http://www.lisasoft.com/blog/programming-public-osgeo-and-locationtech posts http://www.lisasoft.com/blog/comments-osgeo-and-locationtech-development-culture at the time, but progress has been slow so I have not written lately. Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:52 PM, P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote: Good questions Rich. I had never heard of LocationTech until this discussion started, which indicates to me how removed I am from this discussion (and general OSGeo day-to-day admin/affairs). Nevertheless, seems like everything is sorted out and everyone is happy. Let's get back to coding and making great apps. On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Richard Greenwood richard.greenw...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this way in LocationTech. Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right? Cheers. Arnulf Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Richard W. Greenwood, PLS www.greenwoodmap.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor Manager, Science and Data Policy Creative Commons ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G Organizing
On 2014/09/15 13:32, Paul Ramsey wrote: There are a number of places to start in finding such a corporate partner for event planning. Since getting involved in a commercial relationship like this is a big, existential decision for the organization, I think it falls to the board to decide (a) if moving to a single professional event organizer for all major foss4g events (international, na, eu) is warranted (b) if so, assigning a small team to speak with the alternatives, and bring a concrete decision in the form of a recommended company and contract terms to the board It is important to get a decision on (a) as quickly as possible I'd suggest a couple of slight modifications: - slightly different wording for the first item - add a new second item 1) The OSGeo Board decides whether moving to a single professional event organizer for all major foss4g events is warranted and practical at this time (international, na, eu). 2) If the answer to (1) is Yes, then what are the broad terms of reference that the board is willing to consider for potential candidates? For example, do potential candidates have to have established offices in various parts of the world? Do they have to have a track record organizing open source events? Do they have to have multilingual staff? Is the board OK with the notion of a conference organizer who does all the 'back office' tasks, including pre-conference registration, but who does not provide any boots on the ground staff at the actual conference (i.e. that staffing would be handled by the LOC, perhaps with a mix of local paid and volunteer staff)? What about minimum/maximum length of contract? Etc. 3) If the answer to (1) is Yes, then assign a small team to speak with potential candidates, and bring a concrete decision in the form of a recommended company and contract terms to the board. P.S. Item (3) could be broken down into two steps, and if done properly may not introduce too much extra delay: - the small team brings a shortlist to the board, and the board ratifies/amends the shortlist and raises any questions or concerns - the small team re-engages with the shortlisted candidates to arrive at a final recommendation for the board -- Dave Patton Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ Personal website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
