[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 09.01.2013 11:53, schrieb Paweł Paprota:
> On 01/09/2013 11:17 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
>> OpenOffice, now part of Apache, is well known, sure - but I think,
>> still more people know Microsoft Office than OpenOffice.
>
> I don't think ASF would be happy with you reducing them to OpenOffice
> :-) They have over a hundred of well-known projects and as an
> organization they are a great example of how things can work.
That was not my intention. I didn't want to reduce Apache to Openoffice, 
but it would have been wrong to say, openoffice is still a project on 
it's own (and with Oracle/Sun behind it maybe never was). Neither is MS 
Office something on it's own, but backed by Microsoft. The issue in 
question remains: is the existence or the backing by Apache necessary to 
keep OpenOffice as well known as it is? or is it well known and Apache 
is irrelevant in the popularity context? Is popularity increasing by OOo 
being maintained under ASF or doesn't that matter?
> With the rest of your post - I'm not talking about changing the project
> itself. Again - no one wants to take away anything from anyone. I'm not
> sure why people jump to defensive positions so quickly in those 
> discussions.
>
> The projects I gave as examples are as open source as OSM, everyone is
> free to contribute, there is a community behind each of those projects -
> no different than OSM.
> They are just better organized to do some things like communication,
> fundraising, strategy, events and the list goes on and on. This stuff
> cannot be done properly with having only "structures at lower level"
> because such structures will never be able to coordinate with each other
> - they have a different role - to grow the project organically which is
> great but cannot be applied in every area.
Where do we really need more money? You may say, more money is always 
better, but is there anything where you say, there we need money?
If yes: why don't you ask for that directly? Maybe you will get the 
answer, it's not worth the money. Maybe you only get "go for it, I don't 
have money for that, but I hope you'll find someone who want's to pay 
it". But your argument is "we need fundraising" without anything why you 
think that fundraising is necessary.

Communication professionals IMHO most often sound like marketing. 
Professionals most often aren't that into the project. They tell what 
they are told to tell, but I think, it's better to talk to someone who's 
addicted to a project, but not a communication professional. I like 
someone who makes errors - but tries it best to tell me the truth, 
probably mixed with his own opinions, and I would prefer that to a payed 
speaker who loses it's job as soon as he tells something that's not 
politically correct in some leadership's opinion.

Where do you think someone is not working with the current structures? 
What do you think has to be done and you are not able to do due to 
structural reasons?
Sure: Probably you personally are not able to cope with a task (no 
offense, for everybody there are tasks he's not able to solve), but 
where is the organizational structure of osm the killer of your efford? 
I didn't see any hint to something like that, and that's what's missing 
for some people arguing against you here, I guess.

Probably there are tasks that can be supported by some changes. Probably 
there are even tasks that may be best supported by a full fledged 
professional company structure. But if you have a task that's 
unsolvable, then ask for ideas how to solve that.
Probably you get more people to agree to your 
"get-more-professionals"-view, but probably there are people helping to 
solve that without organizational overhead, or with ideas how to cope 
with that task in a less complex or less organization-demanding way.

> And better organization does not mean becoming, as you put it, "a
> centralized moloch of decision makers who reject what other people do
> because it does not fit to their opinion what should be done by someone."
Please give concrete examples what you then mean by "better organization".
What's missing where and when?
And if you really want, why do you think, a "better organization" would 
solve that issue - and what kind of "better organization"?

regards
Peter