[OSGeo-Discuss] Governance in FOSS, a broader view

[Brian M Hamlin]

Hi -

  I have been reading small bits off and on about Rasdaman, and now some 
mention of an "OSGeo EU"

In general it is often useful to extract * assumptions * away from simple 
points-of-view on these important topics.. This "assumptions extraction" is 
difficult work, because participants must a) be honest with themselves and 
others, and b) discuss the "same words" over and over, because actually, 
different people do intend quite different things, when saying common words 
like governance. So it is tedious and aggravating to try to understand when 
someone says "A" they mean A+b+c  while someone else means A+0+2+4 .. it is 
even more difficult to discuss across language barriers.. 

My contribution here is this .. that individual leadership has many, 
simultaneous functions.. a few include: to make decisions quickly, to retain 
profit, to have control of important choices both technical and financial, to 
get recoginition, to inspire and prioritize, to design and implement the 
playing field as the project moves, and others..  The "benevolent dictator" 
could be part of many or all of those, in different amounts.. 

In Free and Open Source Software, many projects do in fact retain their 
"benevolent dictator" structure, but actually, the mix and amount of those 
ingredients above, are in different proportions.  The working methods of 
decision making, and the allocation of resources and profits, are in different 
proportions than other kinds of projects. The details matter. 

In Open Source Foundations, I think it is very rare to have a single person as 
a "dictator", but it is also very important not to divide into overlapping and 
competing organizations while growing. 

I leave it to those with current decision-making authority to work this out. 
but I will say, that I believe that the "benevolent dictator" model in FOSS has 
proven to be stable and effective over time, but the details of the actual 
operations of the project, including those characteristics listed above, with 
"fork-ability" maintained, are more the tests of authenticity. It is not simply 
YES or NO for benevolent dictator, it does matter how the whole mix is 
executed. 

Secondly, it is a serious mistake to divide a low-resource organization into 
parts that may compete, if the mission of the participants is true. So an 
"OSGeo EU" may be a terrible thing for the mission and for the participants, if 
done in a way that weakens the whole, or sets up competing dot-orgs over the 
long term. 

best regards to all, from Berkeley, California

--
Brian M Hamlin
OSGeo California Chapter
blog.light42.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Andrea Ross]

Dear Peter, and All

The comments in this thread have been well considered and thoughtful, so 
I don't have much to add.


What I would like to add, to support what Marc & others have said is 
that to me, for what that's worth, an important part of the issue is who 
is the arbiter of which particular scientific data/facts matter. Many of 
us, myself included, have been doing software engineering & computer 
science for a very long time. I hope many will agree that things are not 
always black and white with irrefutable clear data to justify. Often you 
need to make the best decision you can with imperfect, unclear data, and 
limited resources. A project governance system must be able to handle 
that and my personal opinion is that the BDFL model is not a good choice 
for such conditions.


There are always exceptions, where a BDFL project finds traction for 
various reasons and is successful. Linux is a great example. Peter you 
listed other good ones. However the existence of those exceptions and 
their success, while memorable, doesn't convince me that the model is a 
better one to use.


I do agree with you Peter that OSGeo should make a clear position on 
BDFL so you can decide whether you want to host with them or not. 
Personally, I feel your commercial interest is very significant in this 
case. It sounds a lot like you will be holding more 
power/influence/cards than any other, and while that's totally fine, 
that's not really a good fit for hosting at a not-for-profit foundation, 
IMHO.


I feel OSGeo should not try to be all things to all people. It needs to 
stand for something and have it be very clear what it is.


For what it's worth, BDFL would not be accepted at the Eclipse 
Foundation or LocationTech. As Cameron & Jeroen articulated well, you 
can effectively accomplish the same thing within a different governance 
model. A highly respected project lead or PSC member wields a 
considerable amount of influence.


Kind regards, and good luck!

Andrea

On 09/05/16 07:39, Peter Baumann wrote:

Hi Marc,

I understand your position, and I appreciate your thoughtful deliberations.
Still, these are all on meta level, not fact level. This is where voting-based
decisions, rather than scientific/technologically sound decision can lead to a
failure indeed.

-Peter


On 05/09/2016 11:28 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:

Peter

Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and traction are.

And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at least read Jeroen Ticheler's 
message.he's been there, done it and boasts several T-shirts by now.

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans



Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann  het 
volgende geschreven:

Marc-

bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.

Servus,
Peter



On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
Peter,

I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between academia and 
open source.

Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking not 
efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative speaking/negotiating 
on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody has that remit within 
OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. Presently, a take-it-or-leave-it 
attitude has not helped your cause.

In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day dependent on 
additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). Just 
'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so requires some 
careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in stead of blunt 
negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want things will IMHO 
not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard Dev work, the 
(easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc.

So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in our community. 
Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping up and say 'I 
want'

To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually beneficial solution 
could be found in the area of license-policy(please, give it a thought. It 
would take a new look at things that could work for all).

And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and I and anyone 
joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I see that 
building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online discussions 
I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and skilful even though 
I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work on what I think is 
best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am saying and doing. That's 
both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... the top-down alternative is 
flat-out horrifying to me.

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans



Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann  het 
volgende 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Jonathan Moules]

Hi Peter,
It seems you're concerned that the decisions made by a PSC vote wouldn't 
necessarily be as good scientifically/technologically good as those of a 
benevolent dictator (in this case yourself).

I realise this may be an ironic question, but do you have any scientific 
basis for that claim - I'm sure social science must have investigated this sort 
of thing? I believe the purpose of the OSGeo incubator is to get the best 
outcome for a project, so if there's evidence that that's done via the 
benevolent dictator model it would make sense that OSGeo accept such a model 
where it's desired.

Cheers,
Jonathan

 On Mon, 09 May 2016 12:39:14 +0100 Peter 
Baumannp.baum...@jacobs-university.de wrote  

Hi Marc,

I understand your position, and I appreciate your thoughtful deliberations.
Still, these are all on meta level, not fact level. This is where voting-based
decisions, rather than scientific/technologically sound decision can lead to a
failure indeed.

-Peter


On 05/09/2016 11:28 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
 Peter

 Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and traction are.

 And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at least read Jeroen 
Ticheler's message.he's been there, done it and boasts several T-shirts by 
now.

 Vriendelijke groet,
 Marc Vloemans


 Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann 
p.baum...@jacobs-university.de het volgende geschreven:

 Marc-

 bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.

 Servus,
 Peter


 On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
 Peter,

 I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between 
academia and open source.

 Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking 
not efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative 
speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody 
has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. Presently, a 
take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause.

 In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day 
dependent on additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in 
beer). Just 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so 
requires some careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in 
stead of blunt negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want 
things will IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard 
Dev work, the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc.

 So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in 
our community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping 
up and say 'I want'

 To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually 
beneficial solution could be found in the area of license-policy(please, 
give it a thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all).

 And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and 
I and anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
 Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I 
see that building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online 
discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and skilful 
even though I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work on what I 
think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am saying and doing. 
That's both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... the top-down 
alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.

 Vriendelijke groet,
 Marc Vloemans


 Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann 
p.baum...@jacobs-university.de het volgende geschreven:

 Marc-

 if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It 
is not about
 bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards 
open on the table,
 and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
 Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, 
discussion is all
 about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills 
and genius in fact.
 (No pun intended!)

 Tot ziens,
 Peter

 PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time 
back was not
 guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the 
OSGeo membership
 at large (just some activists).


 On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
 @Peter
 From the discussion I take away the impression that 
Cameron et al have tried to keep the conversation going and not close any 
doors. You have called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
 The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or 
leave it deal, is not conducive to a potential win-win.
 I appreciate your frankness, however.
 The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse 
strings has the power. Something most developers are familiar with.

 As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to 
our mission. Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Peter Baumann]

Hi Marc,

I understand your position, and I appreciate your thoughtful deliberations.
Still, these are all on meta level, not fact level. This is where voting-based
decisions, rather than scientific/technologically sound decision can lead to a
failure indeed.

-Peter


On 05/09/2016 11:28 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> Peter
>
> Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and traction are.
>
> And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at least read Jeroen Ticheler's 
> message.he's been there, done it and boasts several T-shirts by now.
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>> Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann  
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Marc-
>>
>> bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.
>>
>> Servus,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between academia 
>>> and open source.
>>>
>>> Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking not 
>>> efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative 
>>> speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, 
>>> nobody has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. 
>>> Presently, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause.
>>>
>>> In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day dependent on 
>>> additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). 
>>> Just 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so 
>>> requires some careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in 
>>> stead of blunt negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you 
>>> want things will IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do 
>>> the hard Dev work, the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, 
>>> promotion etc.
>>>
>>> So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in our 
>>> community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping 
>>> up and say 'I want'
>>>
>>> To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually beneficial 
>>> solution could be found in the area of license-policy(please, give it a 
>>> thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all).
>>>
>>> And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and I and 
>>> anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
>>> Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I see that 
>>> building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online 
>>> discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and 
>>> skilful even though I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work 
>>> on what I think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am 
>>> saying and doing. That's both courageous of them and humbling for me. So 
>>> ... the top-down alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.
>>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
 Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann 
  het volgende geschreven:

 Marc-

 if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not about
 bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on the 
 table,
 and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
 Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, discussion 
 is all
 about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and genius in 
 fact.
 (No pun intended!)

 Tot ziens,
 Peter

 PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back was not
 guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo 
 membership
 at large (just some activists).


> On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> @Peter
> From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have 
> tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have 
> called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is 
> not conducive to a potential win-win.
> I appreciate your frankness, however.
> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the 
> power. Something most developers are familiar with.
>
> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
> Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects 
> support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has 
> this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching 
> it would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
> participative culture of the community at large.
>
> @Patrick
> No disagreement with the daunting task 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Reminder: 9th Bolsena Hacking Event open for registration! - June 5 to June 11 2016

[Jeroen Ticheler]

Dear all,

We still have space for developers to join the ninth Bolsena Hacking Event this 
year from 5 June to 11 June 2016.

The code sprint focusses collaboration between open source software developers. 
People can share experiences and come up with creative new ideas and 
collaborations. The week allows developers to actively work together and get 
their hands dirty coding great new stuff.

You are welcome to sign up and join the group. There is limited space (25 beds 
with only 10 beds remaining) so please book your place as soon as possible to 
guarantee your place. Full boarding for the week, including food, is 550 Euro 
(excl VAT) per person, the same as last years.

Sign up and read more at: Bolsena Hacking Event 2016 ( 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Bolsena_Code_Sprint_2016 
 )

Hope to see a good crowd again this year!

Ciao,
Jeroen


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Marc Vloemans]

Peter

Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and traction are.

And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at least read Jeroen Ticheler's 
message.he's been there, done it and boasts several T-shirts by now.

Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans


> Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Marc-
> 
> bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.
> 
> Servus,
> Peter
> 
> 
>> On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 
>> I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between academia 
>> and open source.
>> 
>> Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking not 
>> efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative 
>> speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, 
>> nobody has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. 
>> Presently, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause.
>> 
>> In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day dependent on 
>> additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). Just 
>> 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so requires some 
>> careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in stead of blunt 
>> negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want things will 
>> IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard Dev work, 
>> the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc.
>> 
>> So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in our 
>> community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping up 
>> and say 'I want'
>> 
>> To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually beneficial 
>> solution could be found in the area of license-policy(please, give it a 
>> thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all).
>> 
>> And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and I and 
>> anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
>> Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I see that 
>> building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online 
>> discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and 
>> skilful even though I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work 
>> on what I think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am 
>> saying and doing. That's both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... 
>> the top-down alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.
>> 
>> Vriendelijke groet,
>> Marc Vloemans
>> 
>> 
>>> Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann  
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>> Marc-
>>> 
>>> if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not about
>>> bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on the 
>>> table,
>>> and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
>>> Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, discussion 
>>> is all
>>> about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and genius in 
>>> fact.
>>> (No pun intended!)
>>> 
>>> Tot ziens,
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back was not
>>> guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo 
>>> membership
>>> at large (just some activists).
>>> 
>>> 
 On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
 @Peter
 From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have 
 tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have 
 called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
 The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is 
 not conducive to a potential win-win.
 I appreciate your frankness, however.
 The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the 
 power. Something most developers are familiar with.
 
 As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
 Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects 
 support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has 
 this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it 
 would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
 participative culture of the community at large.
 
 @Patrick
 No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to 
 leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only 
 borrow).
 But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be 
 invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of 
 an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental 
 steps.
 Academia and OSGeo go well 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Peter Baumann]

Marc-

bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.

Servus,
Peter


On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between academia 
> and open source.
>
> Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking not 
> efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative 
> speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody 
> has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. Presently, a 
> take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause.
>
> In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day dependent on 
> additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in beer). Just 
> 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so requires some 
> careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in stead of blunt 
> negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want things will 
> IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard Dev work, 
> the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc.
>
> So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in our 
> community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping up 
> and say 'I want'
>
> To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually beneficial 
> solution could be found in the area of license-policy(please, give it a 
> thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all).
>
> And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and I and 
> anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
> Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I see that 
> building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online 
> discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and 
> skilful even though I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work 
> on what I think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am saying 
> and doing. That's both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... the 
> top-down alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>> Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann  
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Marc-
>>
>> if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It is not about
>> bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards open on the 
>> table,
>> and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
>> Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood, discussion is 
>> all
>> about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills and genius in 
>> fact.
>> (No pun intended!)
>>
>> Tot ziens,
>> Peter
>>
>> PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time back was not
>> guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the OSGeo 
>> membership
>> at large (just some activists).
>>
>>
>>> On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>>> @Peter
>>> From the discussion I take away the impression that Cameron et al have 
>>> tried to keep the conversation going and not close any doors. You have 
>>> called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow. 
>>> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or leave it deal, is 
>>> not conducive to a potential win-win.
>>> I appreciate your frankness, however.
>>> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse strings has the power. 
>>> Something most developers are familiar with.
>>>
>>> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to our mission. 
>>> Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our projects 
>>> support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that has 
>>> this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it 
>>> would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive 
>>> participative culture of the community at large.
>>>
>>> @Patrick
>>> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I do not want to 
>>> leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO only 
>>> borrow).
>>> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets tricky. To be 
>>> invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems less of 
>>> an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more incremental 
>>> steps.
>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example. But here I see 
>>> two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
 Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
  het volgende geschreven:

 Dear OSGeo Community,

 This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a bit of growing, and 
 stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though they be not as 
 old as some of us OS geospatial