Am 04.05.2015 um 00:50 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo: ... > > I can't help but draw a parallell between OSM and PostgreSQL, which > has the same "actual product is only owned by a community, but lots of > companies offer commercial support" structure. Nearly all other big > databases are backed by a single company, and PG regularly gets > feedback about people turned off by the lack of an official PG > company. No matter how many companies offer high quality support, and > that this setup is demonstrably better for the project as a whole, > some potential users will always be turned off.
It is completely clear that from a marketing and branding pov a different business model (aka the WMF model, see my diary post from last week) would be simpler, more effective and less confusing. It would however not be more "geo-business friendly". > > So I feel that we don't have a problem with the current structure, but > perhaps we could present that structure better. Compare for example > http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support/ to > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Companies. Gary's "OSM for business > consortium" also has a nice ring to it (if anything, because the > members would be self-selected, it'd avoid a wiki edit war or a > complicated OSMF-led selection process). > I'm not sure what utility such an organisation would have (not even touching on the obvious back lash it would provoke), the OSMF and the community already point to the consulting and services companies in OSMspace where ever possible (for example on switch2osm.org), And if OSM would ever choose to change its business model, see above, it would be defunct anyway. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
