[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: osgeo-discuss
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
From: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett () gmail ! com>
Date: 2015-11-17 7:07:26
Message-ID: CAOhbgAmNg9V4fU5qcr5D1_WytTtsjHmHNpK7MBR1kNbD+AcfaQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
That is fine Maxi, I think the point is to be good neighbours.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 PM Massimiliano Cannata <
massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch> wrote:
> Even if I'm willing to accept narrative b, i cannot exclude narrative a
> and thus i'm not willing in expose osgeo to this concrete risk.
> For this reason i believe we should just suspend the "relations" until we
> have clarified this.
> It is too important not to make any mistake driven by th LT pressure
> instead of taking the necessary time to start colaaborating a pice at a
> time and build reciprocal trust among the two entities.
>
> This is my vision of the facts, i don't say it is bad i dont say it is
> good but trust is something has to be build day by day: i don't give the
> keys of my house to someone i know from a week just becaouse he looks
> gentile ;-)
>
> Maxi
> Il 17/Nov/2015 03:30, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Thank you for the two narratives Rob, I find it a much more constructive
>> presentation then the FAQ provided previously.
>>
>> Narrative B matches my own experience, although I have focused on
>> project/developer level interaction (and largely ignored any capacity as a
>> PCO). I think I can make the slightly stronger statement that as a
>> committer representative on the LocationTech steering committee I have
>> always sought a constructive engagement.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 16 November 2015 at 16:59, Rob Emanuele <rdemanuele@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there's two narratives that are at conflict in this entire
>>> thread. I'm going to try to try to spell them out as I see them:
>>>
>>> A. LocationTech is a newer-than-OSGeo organization that is trying to
>>> make a name for itself, capture market share, promote it's brand, in
>>> general act in a way that makes itself grow. The intention behind
>>> LocationTech's actions in offering services as a professional conference
>>> organizer is mostly for it's own gain; LocationTech wants to smoothly slide
>>> into becoming a part of OSGeo's annual conference for the profit and
>>> promotion of itself, to the potential loss of OSGeo. For that reason, it is
>>> best for the OSGeo community to protect itself from LocationTech, keep
>>> measured distance between the organizations, not allow it to become part of
>>> the FOSS4G international event, or at least to be suspicious of it's stated
>>> good intentions in offering itself to be PCO. The real story is that
>>> LocationTech's intentions are primarily about the profits and higher
>>> visibility it will gain from being part of FOSS4G, and the help it is
>>> offering plays a secondary role.
>>>
>>> B. LocationTech is an organization that was created out of intentions to
>>> help parts of the community that were perhaps not best served by OSGeo at
>>> the time. It has it's own governance and ways of doing things, which
>>> include being backed by small and large companies looking to contribute
>>> financial support to the open source community, which allows for things
>>> like paid staff. The model is different than OSGeo, the structure is
>>> different than OSGeo, and the aims are similar but have differences. One
>>> differences is that it's parent organization is the Eclipse Foundation, who
>>> have professional conference organizers on staff and a lot of experience
>>> running successful conferences. Seeing this is a valuable thing that the
>>> open source geospatial community can take advantage of, LocationTech offers
>>> it's services as a professional conference organizer to the FOSS4G NA
>>> regional conferences, and now has offered it's services to the
>>> international conference in 2017. While certainly not eschewing the
>>> increase in visibility in the community that being part of the conferences
>>> would afford LocationTech, that plays a secondary role to the earnest
>>> desire to help the open source geospatial community.
>>>
>>> Have I captured these narratives correctly or incorrectly? They are
>>> based on impressions and implicit opinions that I've tried to understand
>>> from these conversations. I think perhaps explicitly stating them would be
>>> useful, so if I have failed to do so correctly please correct me.
>>>
>>> I obviously have a preference for believing that narrative B best fits
>>> the reality of the situation. Self promotion surely must play some role in
>>> LocationTech's actions, but is it naive to think that the intentions of
>>> LocationTech are for the community first and itself second? Perhaps. I
>>> don't think so though. The alternative is certainly not how I operate when
>>> I participate in LocationTech.
>>>
>>> I prefer the narrative of openness and trust vs the narrative of
>>> mistrust and suspicion that sounds like bad politics. I hope that this
>>> community that I choose to participate in is not such a political mess that
>>> breeds that sort of selfish market share power plays, and instead it is a
>>> community of people and organizations that take actions based on how they
>>> can contribute to an overall good.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two
>>>> organizations
>>>> > today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being
>>>> "developer
>>>> > focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I think that is more a
>>>> reflection
>>>> > of where the projects involved are in their incubation process that
>>>> any
>>>> > strategic difference.
>>>>
>>>> Jody,
>>>>
>>>> I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter),
>>>> this whole thread has not clarified almost nothing.
>>>>
>>>> As much as I appreciate (and carefully read through) all your inputs,
>>>> that summary leaves me with even more questions.
>>>>
>>>> And, BTW, I agree with you about the FAQ, it also reads naive and silly
>>>> (e.g. comparing Apache vs Mozilla, two different scopes, to
>>>> LocationTech vs OSGeo,
>>>> two with clear overlap).
>>>>
>>>> Putting all the emotional cream whipped so far aside and objectively,
>>>> clearly, that it is all about potential, capacity and market share.
>>>>
>>>> OSGeo has proved its potential, it is capable to paddle its own canoe
>>>> for a decade or more,
>>>> via large self-organized community and successful projects.
>>>>
>>>> LocationTech is a fairly new player with huge & rich organization
>>>> behind,
>>>> that has to prove it's capable to secure market share, and its position.
>>>> Otherwise, the parent organization will simply shut it down as any
>>>> failed project.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> --
--
Jody Garnett
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
That is fine Maxi, I think the point is to be good neighbours.<br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 PM Massimiliano \
Cannata <<a href="mailto:massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch">massimiliano.cannata@supsi.ch</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Even if I'm \
willing to accept narrative b, i cannot exclude narrative a and thus i'm not \
willing in expose osgeo to this concrete risk.<br> For this reason i believe we \
should just suspend the "relations" until we have clarified this.<br> It is \
too important not to make any mistake driven by th LT pressure instead of taking the \
necessary time to start colaaborating a pice at a time and build reciprocal trust \
among the two entities.</p> <p dir="ltr">This is my vision of the facts, i don't \
say it is bad i dont say it is good but trust is something has to be build day by \
day: i don't give the keys of my house to someone i know from a week just \
becaouse he looks gentile ;-)</p> <p dir="ltr">Maxi</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"></div><div class="gmail_quote">Il 17/Nov/2015 03:30, \
"Jody Garnett" <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br \
type="attribution"></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr">Thank you for the two narratives Rob, I find it a much more constructive \
presentation then the FAQ provided previously.<div><br></div><div>Narrative B matches \
my own experience, although I have focused on project/developer level interaction \
(and largely ignored any capacity as a PCO). I think I can make the slightly stronger \
statement that as a committer representative on the LocationTech steering committee I \
have always sought a constructive engagement.</div><div> <br></div></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div \
dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div> <br><div \
class="gmail_quote">On 16 November 2015 at 16:59, Rob Emanuele <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:rdemanuele@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">rdemanuele@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think there's two narratives that \
are at conflict in this entire thread. I'm going to try to try to spell them out \
as I see them:</div><div><br></div><div>A. LocationTech is a newer-than-OSGeo \
organization that is trying to make a name for itself, capture market share, promote \
it's brand, in general act in a way that makes itself grow. The intention behind \
LocationTech's actions in offering services as a professional conference \
organizer is mostly for it's own gain; LocationTech wants to smoothly slide into \
becoming a part of OSGeo's annual conference for the profit and promotion of \
itself, to the potential loss of OSGeo. For that reason, it is best for the OSGeo \
community to protect itself from LocationTech, keep measured distance between the \
organizations, not allow it to become part of the FOSS4G international event, or at \
least to be suspicious of it's stated good intentions in offering itself to be \
PCO. The real story is that LocationTech's intentions are primarily about the \
profits and higher visibility it will gain from being part of FOSS4G, and the help it \
is offering plays a secondary role.</div><div><br></div><div>B. LocationTech is an \
organization that was created out of intentions to help parts of the community that \
were perhaps not best served by OSGeo at the time. It has it's own governance and \
ways of doing things, which include being backed by small and large companies looking \
to contribute financial support to the open source community, which allows for things \
like paid staff. The model is different than OSGeo, the structure is different than \
OSGeo, and the aims are similar but have differences. One differences is that \
it's parent organization is the Eclipse Foundation, who have professional \
conference organizers on staff and a lot of experience running successful \
conferences. Seeing this is a valuable thing that the open source geospatial \
community can take advantage of, LocationTech offers it's services as a \
professional conference organizer to the FOSS4G NA regional conferences, and now has \
offered it's services to the international conference in 2017. While certainly \
not eschewing the increase in visibility in the community that being part of the \
conferences would afford LocationTech, that plays a secondary role to the earnest \
desire to help the open source geospatial community.</div><div><br></div><div>Have I \
captured these narratives correctly or incorrectly? They are based on impressions and \
implicit opinions that I've tried to understand from these conversations. I think \
perhaps explicitly stating them would be useful, so if I have failed to do so \
correctly please correct me.</div><div><br></div><div>I obviously have a preference \
for believing that narrative B best fits the reality of the situation. Self promotion \
surely must play some role in LocationTech's actions, but is it naive to think \
that the intentions of LocationTech are for the community first and itself second? \
Perhaps. I don't think so though. The alternative is certainly not how I operate \
when I participate in LocationTech.</div><div><br></div><div>I prefer the narrative \
of openness and trust vs the narrative of mistrust and suspicion that sounds like bad \
politics. I hope that this community that I choose to participate in is not such a \
political mess that breeds that sort of selfish market share power plays, and instead \
it is a community of people and organizations that take actions based on how they can \
contribute to an overall good.</div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div \
class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mateusz Loskot <span \
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mateusz@loskot.net" \
target="_blank">mateusz@loskot.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett <<a \
href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> > If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two \
organizations<br> > today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being \
"developer<br> > focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I \
think that is more a reflection<br> > of where the projects involved are in their \
incubation process that any<br> > strategic difference.<br>
<br>
</span>Jody,<br>
<br>
I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter),<br>
this whole thread has not clarified almost nothing.<br>
<br>
As much as I appreciate (and carefully read through) all your inputs,<br>
that summary leaves me with even more questions.<br>
<br>
And, BTW, I agree with you about the FAQ, it also reads naive and silly<br>
(e.g. comparing Apache vs Mozilla, two different scopes, to<br>
LocationTech vs OSGeo,<br>
two with clear overlap).<br>
<br>
Putting all the emotional cream whipped so far aside and objectively,<br>
clearly, that it is all about potential, capacity and market share.<br>
<br>
OSGeo has proved its potential, it is capable to paddle its own canoe<br>
for a decade or more,<br>
via large self-organized community and successful projects.<br>
<br>
LocationTech is a fairly new player with huge & rich organization behind,<br>
that has to prove it's capable to secure market share, and its position.<br>
Otherwise, the parent organization will simply shut it down as any<br>
failed project.<br>
<div><div><br>
Best regards,<br>
--<br>
Mateusz Loskot, <a href="http://mateusz.loskot.net" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">http://mateusz.loskot.net</a><br> \
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">_______________________________________________<br> Discuss \
mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" \
target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br> <a \
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><div \
dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div dir="ltr">--<div>Jody Garnett</div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic