<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>+1 to all Mark says.</p>
<p>Additionally:</p>
<p>* Bob estimated that if we didn't have a volunteer to maintain
Linux Australia's running costs, then it would cost ~ $15K pa to
provide such services. OSIA has ~ $15K.</p>
<p>* Personally, I think it is time to face reality, to wrap up OSIA
and refocus OSIA's lobbying function to another, more sustainable
form - which I feel is achievable if we are to set up as a group
under Linux Australia.</p>
<p>* Jack raised concerns that OSIA's position as a representative
of multiple open source companies would not be as effectively
noted by government if presented through Linux Australia. I'd like
to suggest an alternative that I've seen work. In 2013 the
dominant proprietary geospatial company (ESRI) were paying to get
one of their poorly supported formats approved as a standard. We,
open source volunteers, co-authored our concerns in an open letter
[1], which was presented by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation,
and signed by 180 prominent people and businesses. The letter
initiated significant debate, the withdrawal of ESRI's proposal,
then a restructuring of processes within the OGC standards body.</p>
<p>* I'm confident that if we can find people to write submissions,
that we can present them effectively using similar means.<br>
</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/1/18 11:56 am, Mark Phillips
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2110068371.3793047.6736bd81-44ad-4293-b489-d7be6c515bfc.open-xchange@webmailox.com.au">
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<p>The following points are based on my recollections of the SGM.
They may be incorrect and incomplete and if so please correct me
in any replies.<br>
</p>
<p>Also feel free to forward this email to any participates
expected on Saturdays board meeting.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>There is approximately 25 financial members of the OSAI.
There were approximately 7 attendees and I think 3 proxies. (
plus myself and the LA representatives)<br>
</li>
<li>There are 6 sponsors. Did any of these sponsors attend or
supply proxies for the SGM?<br>
</li>
<li>Jack and Rod expressed their wish to stand down, Jack has
stated he would be interested in a limited company secretary
role. Alexar is only interested in a caretaker role and will
resign from the board when additional directors are appointed.<br>
</li>
<li>There was only a single EoI for the role of OSIA director.<br>
</li>
<li>Kathy, Linux Australia (LA), mentioned that volunteer
support is diminishing within LA<br>
</li>
<li>David's comment that OSIA has succeeded and therefore is no
longer relevant</li>
<li>Ron's comment regarding putting OSIA into hibernation for
about 8 months.<br>
</li>
<li>Jacks comment regarding Government agencies approaching OSIA
in the past.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So, while I thought that it could be possible to resurrect OSIA
given three board members and my commitment expressed through my
EoI, I no longer think this is viable long term. There is no
significant support from either the membership, both financial
and non-financial in the short term let alone the long term. and
I would go as far as to say there is no significant support from
OSIA's sponsors. In kind support is not what is currently
needed. Also just looking at the OSIA's attendees at the SGM
there is no next generation.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The governmental/public profile support generated by Jack's
time on the board has been damaged over the last 12 months. This
can only be further damaged if OSIA goes into a hibernation
period as suggested by Ron. If OSIA is going to be resurrected
now, it will be difficult enough to regain this forgone
credibility with the various government. In this circumstance,
as an outsider, I would be seeing that OSIA is not a industry
body but a personality driven body. If there is the correct
person available then the body thrives, if there is not, then
the influence of OSIA dies. This is not to say that strong
leaders are problem, I'm saying that it is this in-between times
that could suggest that the OSIA is not backed by industry but
by persons with a specific interest.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think David's comment (6) is wrong. Open Source has not "won"
it has become somewhat accepted. There will always be issues
that will be detrimental to Open Source that should be fought on
all levels. Two recent examples are the resurrection of the TPP
in Australia and the changes to net-neutrality in the states.
There is also privacy concerns and concerns regarding open
standards. These sorts of fights are never won. Individual
battles are won but the war is ongoing. Vested interests will
always try and assert control to their benefit. OSIA must be
continually on guard for this sort of influence and oppose it
where it can. So no I do not think open source has won if it
ever can.<br>
</p>
<p>It is my opinion that continuing long term support for OSIA in
it's current form does not exist. Therefore a better mechanism
for long term commitment and thus viability for the ideals of
OSIA, independent of personalities, needs a thorough
investigation.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Mark<br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Osia-members mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Osia-members@lists.osia.com.au">Osia-members@lists.osia.com.au</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.osia.com.au/listinfo/osia-members">https://lists.osia.com.au/listinfo/osia-members</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254</pre>
</body>
</html>