[Osia-members] My thought: A new approach is needed.

[Cameron Shorter]

+1 to all Mark says.

Additionally:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* I'm confident that if we can find people to write submissions, that we 
can present them effectively using similar means.

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API


On 26/1/18 11:56 am, Mark Phillips wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Also feel free to forward this email to any participates expected on 
> Saturdays board meeting.
>
>
>  1. 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)
>  2. There are 6 sponsors. Did any of these sponsors attend or supply
>     proxies for the SGM?
>  3. 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.
>  4. There was only a single EoI for the role of OSIA director.
>  5. Kathy, Linux Australia (LA), mentioned that volunteer support is
>     diminishing within LA
>  6. David's comment that OSIA  has succeeded and therefore is no
>     longer relevant
>  7. Ron's comment regarding putting OSIA into hibernation for about 8
>     months.
>  8. Jacks comment regarding Government agencies approaching OSIA in
>     the past.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Osia-members mailing list
> Osia-members at lists.osia.com.au
> https://lists.osia.com.au/listinfo/osia-members

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osia.com.au/pipermail/osia-members/attachments/20180126/fa566711/attachment.html>