Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi all, sorry for coming so late in this thread but I would like to try rephrase what Bart said to the following: On one hand you have a Foundation, let’s name it OSGeo, which is willing to be more professional at organizing the FOSS4G and searching for the help of a professional organization to do so. On the other hand you have a professional organization, let’s name it LocationTech, which proven to be devoted to the previous one and is willing to provide this help by providing bids for organizing the next FOSS4Gs. So from here, I feel we should all keep calm and try to speak our mind in a constructive and when possible positive way. Indeed, if we reread the first paragraph here, can we see anything bad in what is happening except solution (or at least kind-of). Obviously, nothing is totally black or totally white anywhere, so we obviously have to take good care of the implications this may have in the futur and protect what we think have to be protected for being able to evolve safely as a Foundation. But please one more time, let us try to be more positive and let’s *move on* without facing the same issue again and again. I feel it started already. Best, Le 14 sept. 2014 à 08:51, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl a écrit : Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you acknowledge we have a problem with FOSS4G organising? 2) what other solutions to this problem do you see and why are they better than co-organising with Eclipse/LocationTech? Bart Gérald Fenoy http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay 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] Hacking OSGeo
Hey Jeff, can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. I feel you’re prohibiting the discussions from happening at the board level at all with this kind of e-mail. It’s essentially a board decision IMHO, not the decision of the president only. Thanks for listening. Best regards, Bart On 16 Sep 2014, at 16:38, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise. Andrew On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote: 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi Bart, On Wed, 17. Sep 2014 at 09:49:51 +0200, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. Did an essential piece of information not get into the open yet, did I merely miss it or just missed to see it's importance? Is it just the FOSS4G event organisation that LocationTech apparently wants to help (more?) with or is there more? What pending board decision is causing all this (rather unsettling) irritation? Jürgen -- Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden http://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) GermanyIRC: jef on FreeNode signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi Jurgen, some of the discussions started on the conference e-mail list a while back (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/) but only recently this discussion moved to the discuss list. That might explain some of the confusion. I don’t think there is any information which is not out in the open as yet. Andrew is best to comment on your other question, but I personally was mostly interested to see how conference organising could benefit from LocationTech’s offer to help. No board decision has happened as yet. Normally after discussion settles in the community, the board might vote on specific motions that are brought to the table, but this step of the process has not yet been reached. Hope this clarifies a bit, and sorry for the unsettling irritation all this has caused. Best regards, Bart On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:21, Jürgen E. Fischer j...@norbit.de wrote: Hi Bart, On Wed, 17. Sep 2014 at 09:49:51 +0200, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. Did an essential piece of information not get into the open yet, did I merely miss it or just missed to see it's importance? Is it just the FOSS4G event organisation that LocationTech apparently wants to help (more?) with or is there more? What pending board decision is causing all this (rather unsettling) irritation? Jürgen -- Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden http://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) GermanyIRC: jef on FreeNode ___ 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
Dear Bart, Jürgen, All Here's a few thoughts that are probably a good place to start. We started to get into them at Saturday's board meeting. Feedback here is very welcome. 1) The FOSS4G North America 2015 https://2015.foss4g-na.org/ site mentions the event is a collaborative event by OSGeo LocationTech. Is this acceptable? Yes/No For what it's worth, our committees felt the above was totally fine. Just in case not everyone was aware, the Eclipse Foundation's (aka LocationTech's) role in the event is to finance/underwrite, organize logistics like catering/Audio Visual/etc, develop the web sites, handle registration, handle all the on-site details during the event, and business development/ working with sponsors throughout. Our committees (Organizing Program) are made up of people from the FOSS4G community which transcends OSGeo, LocationTech, beyond. They decide the program content at arm's length and have heavy influence over how the conference looks/feels and any special programs we're doing such as diversity, outreach, and social events/aspects of the conference. 2) For future global events where the Eclipse Foundation (aka. LocationTech) provides organizing logistics as described in #1, would the same representation on the website as #1 be acceptable? Yes/No Kind regards, Andrew On 17/09/14 02:29, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Hi Jurgen, some of the discussions started on the conference e-mail list a while back (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/) but only recently this discussion moved to the discuss list. That might explain some of the confusion. I don’t think there is any information which is not out in the open as yet. Andrew is best to comment on your other question, but I personally was mostly interested to see how conference organising could benefit from LocationTech’s offer to help. No board decision has happened as yet. Normally after discussion settles in the community, the board might vote on specific motions that are brought to the table, but this step of the process has not yet been reached. Hope this clarifies a bit, and sorry for the unsettling irritation all this has caused. Best regards, Bart On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:21, Jürgen E. Fischer j...@norbit.de wrote: Hi Bart, On Wed, 17. Sep 2014 at 09:49:51 +0200, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. Did an essential piece of information not get into the open yet, did I merely miss it or just missed to see it's importance? Is it just the FOSS4G event organisation that LocationTech apparently wants to help (more?) with or is there more? What pending board decision is causing all this (rather unsettling) irritation? Jürgen -- Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden http://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) GermanyIRC: jef on FreeNode ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Jeff, Andrew, Bart, Jürgen, All, My 2 cents: - Give this discussion a fresh restart under a new threadname, since hacking OSGeo is a bit biased ;-) - Especially to Jeff: try to make distinction between your personal opinion and your role as OSGeo president - In the Netherlands we have some discussion on the topic of collaboration with other (both general and commercial-oriented) organisations as well. Despite different feelings on this (both within the Dutch board, as well as in the comunity) we still manage to turn this into a frank and constructive discussion. I bet you all can do this on the topic as well! greeting from the lowlands, Gert-Jan Chairman of the dutch local chapter OSGeo.nl Van: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] Namens Andrew Ross Verzonden: woensdag 17 september 2014 13:46 Aan: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo Dear Bart, Jürgen, All Here's a few thoughts that are probably a good place to start. We started to get into them at Saturday's board meeting. Feedback here is very welcome. 1) The FOSS4G North America 2015 https://2015.foss4g-na.org/ site mentions the event is a collaborative event by OSGeo LocationTech. Is this acceptable? Yes/No For what it's worth, our committees felt the above was totally fine. Just in case not everyone was aware, the Eclipse Foundation's (aka LocationTech's) role in the event is to finance/underwrite, organize logistics like catering/Audio Visual/etc, develop the web sites, handle registration, handle all the on-site details during the event, and business development/ working with sponsors throughout. Our committees (Organizing Program) are made up of people from the FOSS4G community which transcends OSGeo, LocationTech, beyond. They decide the program content at arm's length and have heavy influence over how the conference looks/feels and any special programs we're doing such as diversity, outreach, and social events/aspects of the conference. 2) For future global events where the Eclipse Foundation (aka. LocationTech) provides organizing logistics as described in #1, would the same representation on the website as #1 be acceptable? Yes/No Kind regards, Andrew On 17/09/14 02:29, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Hi Jurgen, some of the discussions started on the conference e-mail list a while back (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/) but only recently this discussion moved to the discuss list. That might explain some of the confusion. I dont think there is any information which is not out in the open as yet. Andrew is best to comment on your other question, but I personally was mostly interested to see how conference organising could benefit from LocationTechs offer to help. No board decision has happened as yet. Normally after discussion settles in the community, the board might vote on specific motions that are brought to the table, but this step of the process has not yet been reached. Hope this clarifies a bit, and sorry for the unsettling irritation all this has caused. Best regards, Bart On 17 Sep 2014, at 10:21, Jürgen E. Fischer mailto:j...@norbit.de j...@norbit.de wrote: Hi Bart, On Wed, 17. Sep 2014 at 09:49:51 +0200, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. Did an essential piece of information not get into the open yet, did I merely miss it or just missed to see it's importance? Is it just the FOSS4G event organisation that LocationTech apparently wants to help (more?) with or is there more? What pending board decision is causing all this (rather unsettling) irritation? Jürgen -- Jürgen E. Fischer norBIT GmbH Tel. +49-4931-918175-31 Dipl.-Inf. (FH) Rheinstraße 13 Fax. +49-4931-918175-50 Software Engineer D-26506 Norden http://www.norbit.de QGIS release manager (PSC) GermanyIRC: jef on FreeNode ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Guys, several points: as Bart pointed out, the discussion still continues. I personally am not sure, whether this decision should go to board itself, whether conference committee should be involved in the decision as well. I welcome Andrew's motions, since that is something, we can vote about (more lower): 2014-09-17 13:45 GMT+02:00 Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org: Dear Bart, Jürgen, All Here's a few thoughts that are probably a good place to start. We started to get into them at Saturday's board meeting. Feedback here is very welcome. 1) The FOSS4G North America 2015 site mentions the event is a collaborative event by OSGeo LocationTech. Is this acceptable? Yes/No On our Saturday session, we actually agreed on the point 1, related to FOSS4G-NA. It was not written in the minutes, because I've forgotten to write it there (mea culpa - sorry), it was partly due to late afternoon, long talk, forget to take any minutes. Another question is, whether Board has any right to vote on that. As long as the conference is about free and open source software for geospatial, you can do it (but could board prohibit that anyway?). We are thankful, OSGeo has already logo on conference page (you did already significantly more, that other LOCs). Is this related to OSGeo's conference committee? Or NA-Conference-Committee? I agree, that formal agreement from the board side would highly make sense. If it is not too late, we can vote about this on our next meeting (should be latests within month from now). For what it's worth, our committees felt the above was totally fine. Just in case not everyone was aware, the Eclipse Foundation's (aka LocationTech's) role in the event is to finance/underwrite, organize logistics like catering/Audio Visual/etc, develop the web sites, handle registration, handle all the on-site details during the event, and business development/ working with sponsors throughout. I was not following the discussion about FOSS4G-NA organisation, therefore I welcome this summary and I personally am OK with that. Our committees (Organizing Program) are made up of people from the FOSS4G community which transcends OSGeo, LocationTech, beyond. They decide the program content at arm's length and have heavy influence over how the conference looks/feels and any special programs we're doing such as diversity, outreach, and social events/aspects of the conference. No doubt on that. I personally welcome, that communities are getting closer together, rather than splitting. One event for all is IMHO better. 2) For future global events where the Eclipse Foundation (aka. LocationTech) provides organizing logistics as described in #1, would the same representation on the website as #1 be acceptable? Yes/No Again, we addressed this issue in our face2face discussion, but (IIRC) did not come to clear conclusion. Two issues I see there: 1 - since there is no firm organisation committee, you would have to talk to LOC directly (at least for 2015), whether they welcome your help or whether they are on their own (we probably can not force them, since they went for the bit independently on OSGeo). 2 - FOSS4 (global) was always promoted as the OSGeo event. It is one of our most visible events, with highest impact. Not to forget the revenue, which is very important to OSGeo. Therefore we (I on this place, just trying to point some people concerns) would like to see OSGeo is promoted on FOSS4G and people should understand, that OSGeo is *the* organisation, on which behalf the conference is taking place. We provide LOC with seeding money, we give them permission (aka we ask them politely) to organise FOSS4G on our behalf. Of course, if LocationTech is taking significant responsibility for the conference, their appearance on the event shall be significant as well. On Saturday, we discussed about possibility, to form it like Hosted by OSGeo, organised by LocationTech or similar (please, do not take mi literally, it was long day) - AFAIK with no clear conclusion. Right now, OSGeo is providing seed money, selecting the venue, little bit of infrastructure (mailing list, ..). The rest is on LOC (if I'm not completely wrong). OSGeo is expecting certain revenue. As far as I understand it, LocationTech is accepting our selection process, they would like to help with the tasks, we are not able to address and LOC must deal with (catering, audio/video, web sites, registration, sponsors) - shall LocationTech talk to LOC on first place? I can imagine, some might be really glad with some help. How to organise common agreement on daily basis? Should LocationTech people join conference-committee (some might be already in)? Platform for talks between people, who are doing, is IMHO missing (seems, for FOSS4G-Europe, we are going to form one). I just have no idea, how to get things set-up within current conference-global approach. Sorry, this should go to conference-dev mlist, just continuing the thread.
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
All, How would the separation of projects occur between those in OSGeo already vs those wanting to be LocationTech certified as well. I would imagine that some would not feel like they need to be certified by both. What happens in this case? Also, what are the longer term differences between LocationTech and OSGeo with regard to keeping code legally free of proprietary code, what's the followup on the Location tech side? I'm more in tune with OSGeo processes BTW. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jachym Cepicky Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:59 AM To: Jody Garnett Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Daniel Morissette Subject: 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.commailto: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.chmailto: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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Bob, For what it's worth, and it's the same at OSGeo of course, LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation want projects to want to join. It's always optional. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that OSGeo would invest in the specialized staff, infrastructure, and such to do the kind of rigorous IP review that LocationTech Eclipse Foundation projects receive. This isn't a shot against OSGeo, it just is. There are other services infrastructure that are similar. The good news is, so long as an OSGeo project was comfortable doing the trademark assignment (part of the process), then a project could be dual listed fairly comfortably. I don't think the benefit that OSGeo gets from projects is diminished in this case. If this is comfortable to everyone, I could see LocationTech projects do the same and list at OSGeo. Andrew On 17/09/14 08:08, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote: All, How would the separation of projects occur between those in OSGeo already vs those wanting to be LocationTech certified as well. I would imagine that some would not feel like they need to be certified by both. What happens in this case? Also, what are the longer term differences between LocationTech and OSGeo with regard to keeping code legally free of proprietary code, what's the followup on the Location tech side? I'm more in tune with OSGeo processes BTW. Bobb *From:*discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Jachym Cepicky *Sent:* Monday, September 15, 2014 4:59 AM *To:* Jody Garnett *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; Daniel Morissette *Subject:* 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 mailto: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 mailto: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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
All, So, I've been following this (these) threads for a while now. I like Darrell's thoughts on moving forward with his FOSS4G Organizing positing, and this seems like an obvious direction to follow up on. An additional thought here, does it make any sense to think of LocationTech as a Marketing agent for OSGeo product? The more stringent legal review etc. all seem to point towards the notion of making the products more viable in the commercial space. This could lead to mandating other promotional aspects like better documentation, etc. OSGeo could be labelled what it's always been, the R D side of GeoSpatial software design, while LocationTech handles more of the practical application side of the equation. I could see this becoming a push / pull type of collaboration where both sides can glean from the other what makes a project thrive, etc. I'm not so sure about the non-desire by OSGeo to invest in specialized staff or infrastructure. But, there does seem to be a divide between what OSGeo want/needs from it's projects vs LocationTech. bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:33 AM To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo Bob, For what it's worth, and it's the same at OSGeo of course, LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation want projects to want to join. It's always optional. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that OSGeo would invest in the specialized staff, infrastructure, and such to do the kind of rigorous IP review that LocationTech Eclipse Foundation projects receive. This isn't a shot against OSGeo, it just is. There are other services infrastructure that are similar. The good news is, so long as an OSGeo project was comfortable doing the trademark assignment (part of the process), then a project could be dual listed fairly comfortably. I don't think the benefit that OSGeo gets from projects is diminished in this case. If this is comfortable to everyone, I could see LocationTech projects do the same and list at OSGeo. Andrew On 17/09/14 08:08, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote: All, How would the separation of projects occur between those in OSGeo already vs those wanting to be LocationTech certified as well. I would imagine that some would not feel like they need to be certified by both. What happens in this case? Also, what are the longer term differences between LocationTech and OSGeo with regard to keeping code legally free of proprietary code, what's the followup on the Location tech side? I'm more in tune with OSGeo processes BTW. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jachym Cepicky Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:59 AM To: Jody Garnett Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Daniel Morissette Subject: 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.commailto: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.chmailto: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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi Bart, Sort of off topic, the timing was good for me to get into my truck and drive 5 hours by myself this morning at 5am, to a meeting in cute small island province, Prince Edward Island (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/46.25739/-63.13748). In other words, I had lots of time to think. I am happy to grab a wifi spot to respond now. I think my actions recently offended several leaders in our geo community, including Andrew, Daniel, Arnulf, yourself Bart, and likely others. I did not mean this to happen. I am sorry and embarrassed of my actions and words. I can see Bart and Daniel's points well now. My comments or feelings were not helping OSGeo grow. I love seeing the ideas and questions coming now from community members such as BobB. And I think these questions and discussions will help the Board see the best way forward. I am also pondering of suggesting to the Board, later when we get to that point, of possibly querying the Charter Members, in a referendum of sorts. Not sure, I'm just speaking openly here. I care deeply about the community, of OSGeo and FOSS4G. Sometimes my passion gets in the way. I am getting better, but I need to improve. I will improve. I also would like Bart to come back onto the Board, and act as the LocationTech liason, and help us work together and make Open Source geospatial grow and thrive. If some feel that I need to take more drastic steps, than just my heartfelt apology, please say so here. But I am dedicated to help OSGeo and FOSS4G, and to work with all communities in our ecosystem. Yours, -jeff On 2014-09-17 4:49 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Hey Jeff, can you please at least give the board a chance to form an opinion on this? If it ever gets to the point that a motion is on the table and you have not been persuaded, you can always vote -1. I feel you’re prohibiting the discussions from happening at the board level at all with this kind of e-mail. It’s essentially a board decision IMHO, not the decision of the president only. Thanks for listening. Best regards, Bart On 16 Sep 2014, at 16:38, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: I am also pondering of suggesting to the Board, later when we get to that point, of possibly querying the Charter Members, in a referendum of sorts. Not sure, I'm just speaking openly here. Please do. As I gently indicated in an earlier email, all these discussions are very new to me, so it is reasonable to assume they are new to many other Charter Members around the world as well. Given that most of this thread seems to be driven by FOSS4G, a conf I have little fondness for anymore, the conversation sounds very alien to me. Esp. so since it hints at changing the nature of OSGeo. Getting the input of Charter Members worldwide will be noisy and difficult, but that is how communities are. Whoever wants to provide an input should have a visible and welcome opportunity to do so. Plus, it will be a good chance to use the Charter Members for something other than just voting, for a change ;) -- Puneet Kishor ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hi Jachym, Andrew and others, Most of what you wrote below Jachym sounds good. I've written an email [1] about the FOSS4G trademark to the board and conference list and feel that the way the FOSS4G NA 2015 now uses the FOSS4G trademark, with OSGeo and LocationTech as equal collaborators, does indeed injustice to this. It should IMO indeed be something like Hosted by OSGeo, organised in collaboration with LocationTech. My vote at this stage(!) would be No and No to Andrews questions. That said, I'm convinced the two entities are very complimentary and can learn a lot from each other and collaborate intensively. OSGeo should serve its business supporters better, LocationTech could do with a stronger community atmosphere. If both do a good job, the whole community will benefit tremendously. It could result in a global annual event and many local ones that serve the different communities from grassroots to corporate (Sounds silly to separate people in groups though). Thanks, Jeroen 1[ http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2014-September/012113.html ] On 17 sep. 2014, at 16:06, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: --- See his email on the list :-) --- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Puneet, I agree with you, this is an hot decision that cannot be taken by a small group of people without at least have heard about what the *OSGeo community* think about. In this tread I have learnt a lot on LocationTech and on motivation that pushed some OSGeo members to embrace also LocationTech. I can really feel the desire to help and foster geospatial open source software from those guys. BTW, I also believe that FOSS4G is the OSGeo event. For this reason I believe that if OSGeo want to change things and *share* it with LocationTech (not just let them organize it in the name of), we need a deep OSGeo internal discussion at all level: Local Chapters, Charter members, Committees and finally the Board which has the responsibility to vote on this. So, my proposal is: 1) Have a formal proposal from LocationTech which explain terms of collaboration, commitments and guarantees 2) Publish publicly this proposal for a period (let's say 2 week) for people to look into this proposal 3) Call for a vote from charter members 4) Call for a letter of position letter from each committee and local Chapters 5) Publish publicly the results 6) Discuss it on the next board meeting and finally have a vote and a letter of motivation from the Board BTW, the FOSS4G-EUROPE website (http://foss4g-e.org/) states clearly at the home page: OSGeo's European Conference on Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial. I hope this doesn't hurt anyone, and brings positive point of discussion. It is just my personal thought as a new board member, and sorry if I've lost some best practice currently in place. Maxi 2014-09-17 19:14 GMT+02:00 P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: I am also pondering of suggesting to the Board, later when we get to that point, of possibly querying the Charter Members, in a referendum of sorts. Not sure, I'm just speaking openly here. Please do. As I gently indicated in an earlier email, all these discussions are very new to me, so it is reasonable to assume they are new to many other Charter Members around the world as well. Given that most of this thread seems to be driven by FOSS4G, a conf I have little fondness for anymore, the conversation sounds very alien to me. Esp. so since it hints at changing the nature of OSGeo. Getting the input of Charter Members worldwide will be noisy and difficult, but that is how communities are. Whoever wants to provide an input should have a visible and welcome opportunity to do so. Plus, it will be a good chance to use the Charter Members for something other than just voting, for a change ;) -- Puneet Kishor ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Massimiliano Cannata* Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica Responsabile settore Geomatica Istituto scienze della Terra Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14 Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09 massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch *www.supsi.ch/ist http://www.supsi.ch/ist* ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
The video under question is here: https://vimeo.com/106232256 We’ve got about 50% of the videos up, but the remainder will have to wait a week since we’ve hit our weekly upload limits on vimeo. Darrell On Sep 15, 2014, at 13:37, Kristin Bott bo...@reed.edu wrote: 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise. Andrew On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote: 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise. Andrew On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote: 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Jeff, Everyone I'd like to try using a metaphor in case it might help. Imagine FOSS4G as an open source library. Rather than create a new library that does pretty much the same thing, many feel that a single vibrant library in this case is the best thing for the ecosystem. Hopefully this is seen as pretty reasonable so far. There are different models for open source. Some models are open to all try hard to keep a level playing field. In this models people can comfortably contribute knowing that their efforts benefit everyone. In this model, it's open to everyone including parties that might be competitors elsewhere. Other models are pretty unfair, such as when a company requires copyright assignment to the company, only allows employees to influence the roadmap, and uses a strong license like the GPL. Under such circumstances, that company has a strong advantage over anyone else. For one example, they are the only ones that can offer a non-GPL license version of the software. For the past 10 years, different groups were welcome to contribute to our FOSS4G library. After their contributions were sufficient, they got to participate in influencing the roadmap for the library. Some groups only had the capacity to contribute a little, some a lot. I believe this is what we're talking about. LocationTech would like to contribute in a fair way and participate in the roadmap too, just as others have done. Everyone wins if this can happen. I'm very happy to talk about governance and how we can do things fairly, openly, transparently, and make sure everyone is comfortable. If what you're telling me is that FOSS4G is not open source, but instead proprietary then I've made a mistake and it wasn't the FOSS4G I thought it was all these years. Does this make sense? Andrew On 16/09/14 08:38, Jeff McKenna wrote: Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't
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
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] Hacking OSGeo
Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you acknowledge we have a problem with FOSS4G organising? 2) what other solutions to this problem do you see and why are they better than co-organising with Eclipse/LocationTech? Bart Sent from my iPhone On 14 sep. 2014, at 03:25, Venkatesh Raghavan ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp wrote: Dear All, On 2014/09/14 0:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. I fully agree with views expressed by Jeff. I look forward growing collaborations with OSGeo and other international organizations in a systematic and orderly manner. Best Venka We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf 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
Barend, I’m talking about the “burn-out signals that have been given recently by the current LOC (mostly because they have to re-invent the wheel every year and do a lot more than can be expected from them). So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. There have been many related threads on the conference committee about this recently. Sorry if my brief summary does not reflect all of those discussions. Best regards, Bart On 14 Sep 2014, at 09:10, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote: What actually do you perceive to be the problem with FOSS4G organising? I see it being a rather succesful, pretty large conference for the last two years, bringing in a substantial amount of income to OSGEO. One might perceive it as being not the same as it used to be, but that is because size DOES matter, and once such a thing grows over a certain size (I guess around 700+ participants or so), you just cant have the informal cosy event that used to be... Yours, Barend -- Barend Köbben Senior Lecturer ITC-University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands) @barendkobben On 13-09-2014 23:51, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you acknowledge we have a problem with FOSS4G organising? 2) what other solutions to this problem do you see and why are they better than co-organising with Eclipse/LocationTech? Bart Sent from my iPhone On 14 sep. 2014, at 03:25, Venkatesh Raghavan ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp wrote: Dear All, On 2014/09/14 0:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. I fully agree with views expressed by Jeff. I look forward growing collaborations with OSGeo and other international organizations in a systematic and orderly manner. Best Venka We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Guys, as long as I understand it: some members of the community are scared of LocationTech taking over whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal dislikes. Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to crush OSGeo or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, regarding (again) some remarks of some members of the community (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress. I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides, still calm and productive. To contribute of course means to work and LocationTech is anything but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation between LocationTech and OSGeo. Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and weaken our weaknesses should have non-zero-sum effect. We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall try to find solution for the next time. In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and everybody can go it's way than. I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted anything, what was said. Thank you Jachym 2014-09-14 10:07 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl: Barend, I'm talking about the burn-out signals that have been given recently by the current LOC (mostly because they have to re-invent the wheel every year and do a lot more than can be expected from them). So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. There have been many related threads on the conference committee about this recently. Sorry if my brief summary does not reflect all of those discussions. Best regards, Bart On 14 Sep 2014, at 09:10, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote: What actually do you perceive to be the problem with FOSS4G organising? I see it being a rather succesful, pretty large conference for the last two years, bringing in a substantial amount of income to OSGEO. One might perceive it as being not the same as it used to be, but that is because size DOES matter, and once such a thing grows over a certain size (I guess around 700+ participants or so), you just cant have the informal cosy event that used to be... Yours, Barend -- Barend Köbben Senior Lecturer - ITC-University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands) @barendkobben On 13-09-2014 23:51, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you acknowledge we have a problem with FOSS4G organising? 2) what other solutions to this problem do you see and why are they better than co-organising with Eclipse/LocationTech? Bart Sent from my iPhone On 14 sep. 2014, at 03:25, Venkatesh Raghavan ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp wrote: Dear All, On 2014/09/14 0:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. I fully agree with views expressed by Jeff. I look forward growing collaborations with OSGeo and other international organizations in a systematic and orderly manner. Best Venka We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Dear Jachym, Everyone Just a few quite thoughts. I encourage anyone who has concerns, or fears anything resembling a take-over to please speak up on the list, off-list with any other person from OSGeo me, or even just me in private. We, people involved with both OSGeo LocationTech, have been talking for roughly 2 years. I don't think everyone is fully aware of the fact that at each step collaboration was possible, we approached the OSGeo board other leaders in the community discretely to talk about it and once there was a rough plan, followed-through publicly such as bidding on FOSS4G 2014, organizing FOSS4G NA 2015. I can't think of anything that was done improperly. We're very open to feedback in public or private about this. The team organizing assembling the program for FOSS4G NA 2015 is a team of 11 people volunteering from the community. These are people well known to OSGeo and many have participated in past FOSS4G teams. They are freed up from the burden of the logistics of organizing the conference by Anne Jacko's team at the Eclipse Foundation who organizes conferences for a living. I believe that there will be more control in such a circumstance. For what it's worth, when discussing with the OSGeo board yesterday we noticed obvious signs of this like much more prominent mention of OSGeo OSGeo's logo on the FOSS4G NA web site. Also, FOSS4G NA 2015 speakers will get free passes. We hope this is seen as a nice positive step forward. Kind regards, Andrew On 14/09/14 07:25, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Guys, as long as I understand it: some members of the community are scared of LocationTech taking over whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal dislikes. Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to crush OSGeo or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, regarding (again) some remarks of some members of the community (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress. I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides, still calm and productive. To contribute of course means to work and LocationTech is anything but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation between LocationTech and OSGeo. Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and weaken our weaknesses should have non-zero-sum effect. We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall try to find solution for the next time. In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and everybody can go it's way than. I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted anything, what was said. Thank you Jachym 2014-09-14 10:07 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl: Barend, I'm talking about the burn-out signals that have been given recently by the current LOC (mostly because they have to re-invent the wheel every year and do a lot more than can be expected from them). So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. There have been many related threads on the conference committee about this recently. Sorry if my brief summary does not reflect all of those discussions. Best regards, Bart On 14 Sep 2014, at 09:10, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote: What actually do you perceive to be the problem with FOSS4G organising? I see it being a rather succesful, pretty large conference for the last two years, bringing in a substantial amount of income to OSGEO. One might perceive it as being not the same as it used to be, but that is because size DOES matter, and once such a thing grows over a certain size (I guess around 700+ participants or so), you just cant have the informal cosy event that used to be... Yours, Barend -- Barend Köbben Senior Lecturer - ITC-University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands) @barendkobben On 13-09-2014 23:51, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
FWIW I'm happy to hear that there was such a face to face discussion. I believe that open communication on the issues will be the best way to address the fears and find ways to move forward in the best interest of the overall worldwide community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who have a common interest in seeing free and open source geospatial software strive. Keep in mind that we all come to this model of software development for different reasons (business, academic, philosophical, hobby, etc.), but in the end we're all working towards a similar objective, so there is no fear to be had, just different means of reaching a common objective, and since the result of everybody's actions is better free/open source software, everybody will benefit in the end. Not sure if I was able to relay my thoughts properly... maybe I need a bit more sleep. Cheers all Daniel On 14-09-14 10:25 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Guys, as long as I understand it: some members of the community are scared of LocationTech taking over whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal dislikes. Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to crush OSGeo or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, regarding (again) some remarks of some members of the community (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress. I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides, still calm and productive. To contribute of course means to work and LocationTech is anything but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation between LocationTech and OSGeo. Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and weaken our weaknesses should have non-zero-sum effect. We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall try to find solution for the next time. In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and everybody can go it's way than. I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted anything, what was said. Thank you Jachym -- Daniel Morissette T: +1 418-696-5056 #201 http://www.mapgears.com/ Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Looking forward to see things happen. Good luck Jachym 2014-09-14 17:07 GMT+02:00 Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org: Dear Jachym, Everyone Just a few quite thoughts. I encourage anyone who has concerns, or fears anything resembling a take-over to please speak up on the list, off-list with any other person from OSGeo me, or even just me in private. We, people involved with both OSGeo LocationTech, have been talking for roughly 2 years. I don't think everyone is fully aware of the fact that at each step collaboration was possible, we approached the OSGeo board other leaders in the community discretely to talk about it and once there was a rough plan, followed-through publicly such as bidding on FOSS4G 2014, organizing FOSS4G NA 2015. I can't think of anything that was done improperly. We're very open to feedback in public or private about this. The team organizing assembling the program for FOSS4G NA 2015 is a team of 11 people volunteering from the community. These are people well known to OSGeo and many have participated in past FOSS4G teams. They are freed up from the burden of the logistics of organizing the conference by Anne Jacko's team at the Eclipse Foundation who organizes conferences for a living. I believe that there will be more control in such a circumstance. For what it's worth, when discussing with the OSGeo board yesterday we noticed obvious signs of this like much more prominent mention of OSGeo OSGeo's logo on the FOSS4G NA web site. Also, FOSS4G NA 2015 speakers will get free passes. We hope this is seen as a nice positive step forward. Kind regards, Andrew On 14/09/14 07:25, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Guys, as long as I understand it: some members of the community are scared of LocationTech taking over whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal dislikes. Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to crush OSGeo or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, regarding (again) some remarks of some members of the community (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress. I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides, still calm and productive. To contribute of course means to work and LocationTech is anything but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation between LocationTech and OSGeo. Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and weaken our weaknesses should have non-zero-sum effect. We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall try to find solution for the next time. In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and everybody can go it's way than. I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted anything, what was said. Thank you Jachym 2014-09-14 10:07 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl: Barend, I'm talking about the burn-out signals that have been given recently by the current LOC (mostly because they have to re-invent the wheel every year and do a lot more than can be expected from them). So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. There have been many related threads on the conference committee about this recently. Sorry if my brief summary does not reflect all of those discussions. Best regards, Bart On 14 Sep 2014, at 09:10, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote: What actually do you perceive to be the problem with FOSS4G organising? I see it being a rather succesful, pretty large conference for the last two years, bringing in a substantial amount of income to OSGEO. One might perceive it as being not the same as it used to be, but that is because size DOES matter, and once such a thing grows over a certain size (I guess around 700+ participants or so), you just cant have the informal cosy event that used to be... Yours, Barend -- Barend Köbben Senior Lecturer - ITC-University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500 AE
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Thanks for letting us/me know about this plan Claude, it is really wonderful that you are planning a 10-year FOSS4G reunion event in Lausanne. I encourage all communities that are thinking of hosting 2016 to begin preparing their bids, and we will make sure to get the 2016 bid out shortly. Talk soon! :) -jeff On 2014-09-14 9:02 AM, Claude Philipona wrote: Hi Bart, So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. This is maybe a bit of a quick answer. As I told several people this week, we would be ready to organize a second edition in Lausanne in 2016 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of 2006 edition. Most of the previous involved organizations would be happy to start again. We would have the chance to use the brand new Swiss Tech Convention Center, a high tech very modular facility, that can accommodate conference up to 3000 attendess. Check the the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqRy1Mxm27s Swiss Tech Convention Center: http://www.tstcc.ch/en/index.php Also, I don't think foss4g as grown that much. In Lausanne there were 570 pre-registered attendees + 80 that registered on site. Actually what as grown is more the fees than the number of attendees. Early Bird Workshop Registration (per half day): 2014:$100 / 2006:~$50 Early Bird Conference Registration 2014: $650 / 2006:~$250 Regular Workshop Registration (per half day): 2014: $150 / 2006:~$75 Regular Conference Registration: 2014: $750 / 2006:~$300 And Switzerland is not known as the cheapest country in the world... I'm not saying that 2014 prices are too expensive, don't understand me wrong. I'm just saying that over the years, several tasks have been subcontracted by the local committee, which is possible with higher fees, so I would say that the risk of organizer burnout has reduced, not increased over the years. And finally, thank you very much to all organizers, volunteers, of FOSS4G 2014 PDX, it was a wonderful and successful edition. I really enjoyed it. Claude On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Barend, I’m talking about the “burn-out signals that have been given recently by the current LOC (mostly because they have to re-invent the wheel every year and do a lot more than can be expected from them). So IMHO organising it this way is not sustainable in the long run, past organisers will not come back for a second round. It simply has gotten too big to organise it this way. There have been many related threads on the conference committee about this recently. Sorry if my brief summary does not reflect all of those discussions. Best regards, Bart On 14 Sep 2014, at 09:10, b.j.kob...@utwente.nl b.j.kob...@utwente.nl wrote: What actually do you perceive to be the problem with FOSS4G organising? I see it being a rather succesful, pretty large conference for the last two years, bringing in a substantial amount of income to OSGEO. One might perceive it as being not the same as it used to be, but that is because size DOES matter, and once such a thing grows over a certain size (I guess around 700+ participants or so), you just cant have the informal cosy event that used to be... Yours, Barend -- Barend Köbben Senior Lecturer ITC-University of Twente PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands) @barendkobben On 13-09-2014 23:51, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote: Okay then I have 2 follow-up questions for you and/or Jeff: 1) do you acknowledge we have a problem with FOSS4G organising? 2) what other solutions to this problem do you see and why are they better than co-organising with Eclipse/LocationTech? Bart Sent from my iPhone On 14 sep. 2014, at 03:25, Venkatesh Raghavan ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp wrote: Dear All, On 2014/09/14 0:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. I fully agree with views expressed by Jeff. I look forward growing collaborations with OSGeo and other international organizations in a systematic and orderly manner. Best Venka We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
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 aspect or services not found in osgeo and that experts and leaders found there. When the talks go up, skip to the end of the LocationTech projects you can see leads from several projects answer your question. For me personally the motivation is the same: foster new projects as the best way of fulfilling our OSGeo mandate / LocationTech charter. For me as uDig project lead: a) The uDig project always wanted to join Eclipse: since it is built with Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP) the best way to attract new RCP developers is to take uDig closer to where the developers are. b) Is in need of a new home as Refractions does not appear active Sorry in advance for my eventual ignorance, but I think this would help people better
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf ___ 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
Hi Andrew, Sure, sounds good. Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Jeff McKenna MapServer Consulting and Training Services http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Jeff, I'm not sure what LocationTech has to do with this topic? Please let me know if I'm missing something. In case it wasn't perfectly clear, I'm happy to state, there's no pressure whatsoever from LocationTech in terms of OSGeo's brand. I get that some feel LocationTech's mere existence affects OSGeo, but in my opinion no more than Apache, Mozilla, Open Perception, Flamingo, and many others should. In terms of events, there is a little more urgency, simply because we're planning for 2016 now. It is clearly desirable to have a single strong event. Andrew On 13/09/14 08:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Hi Andrew, Sure, sounds good. Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Dear All, On 2014/09/14 0:11, Jeff McKenna wrote: Responding to your comment, we now work closely with several foundations (ISPRS, ICA, GLTN, and soon GSDI, are examples that I have met with recently personally). There does seem to be something different about the way LocationTech is handing this, seems somewhat 'rushed' or 'forced', and I am not sure why this pressure. Maybe we can slow things down a bit, take the hand off the throttle, sign an MoU, maybe have booths at each other's events...similar to how OSGeo works already with these other foundations. I fully agree with views expressed by Jeff. I look forward growing collaborations with OSGeo and other international organizations in a systematic and orderly manner. Best Venka We can talk about this shortly. -jeff On 2014-09-13 7:51 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear Jeff, Everyone, I'll drop in to help as well. I may be a little late as I promised my children a video chat. I apologize as I'd like to be there and help. For what it's worth, regarding the tag line agenda item, OSGeo is far from the only open source community. Unaffiliated projects in Github can claim that for example. It might be better to aim for something a bit more distinct. See you soon, Andrew On September 12, 2014 7:28:08 PM PDT, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: For the record Arnulf forgot that the Board meeting starts at 8am at the same location, discussing of course the exact topics that he mentioned (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2014-09-13). But please don't let me hinder your energy, definitely tackle the areas that need love (reviving the marketting committee, picking your favorite project in incubation and give some nudges...lots to do!) Thanks, see you early at the sprint. PS. the Board meeting, and any Board meeting, is open to anyone and everyone. -jeff On 2014-09-12 9:25 AM, Seven wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf 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
Fair enough - one thing that would be nice to do, at the code sprint if it would not be too disruptive, is ask the projects represented there what we could do to help. Or perhaps better asked as what help is needed :) Jody Garnett On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Seven se...@arnulf.us wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sure happy to talk over lunch. And yes, Code Sprint = Code Sprint. Arguably OSGeo has some code, its just not C or Java but some weird social code that is really hard to serialize... Trying for years already but mostly creating new bugs. :-) Cheers, Arnulf Am 2014-09-12 16:14, schrieb Jody Garnett: Thanks Arnulf, I gotta spend time with committers tomorrow (Code Sprint = Code Sprint). Would be happy to talk over lunch? Jody Garnett On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Seven se...@arnulf.us mailto:se...@arnulf.us wrote: Folks, if anybody indicates interest in hacking OSGeo at the code sprint in Portland tomorrow please answer. In past years we have brain stormed around Marketing, Sponsorship, Education, Data (specifically how OSGeo can support the Open Data model) and so on. It is a aunique opportunity to evolve OSGeo as an organization and I would be happy to contribute to anything you might want to achieve for within and around OSGeo as an organization. This can also include how (or rather if at all) OSGeo manages FOSS4G. In my experience the day directly after the event is the best time to actually do this, impressions are still fresh and lots of ideas have popped up. If we do not invest some time into realizing them we are not going to get anywhere. So if you think OSGeo needs a push in a certain direction, join. There will be representatives from the board of directors, the president (I guess you are there Jeff, right?) and other folks in key roles. It is probably the only time in the year when you will get so many bright OSGeo folks in one place. Here is a link to drop your ideas. Its a Wiki, just go hack it as you like: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Hack_2014 Cheers, Arnulf ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss - -- http://arnulf.us Exploring Space, Time and Mind -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlQTgTEACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0d8wCfZUucyn0bybH86rO01SYEW2aY 92EAnR+zka37b9BTtyQZ6qMqE6cpH6uR =7klV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
