Andrew,
I suggest that the next steps would be to do a gap analysis between
OSGeo incubation processes and LT incubation processes.
This gap analysis will likely lead to:
* Merging of both OSGeo and LT processes to pick up the best points of
each.
* Identification of the differences, followed by a process describing
the migration path from one to the other.
Andrew, is this something you are interested to pursue, possibly in
conjunction with the incubation committee?
On 11/09/2012 12:51 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Cameron:
There's no reason a project can't play in both LT and OSGeo spheres, and indeed
proposed a motion to that effect some months ago now.
However, it proved very controversial among some members of our community and I
didn't feel it worth fighting at the time. Perhaps more pragmatic heads will
prevail as LT gets further along.
-mpg
On Sep 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Andrew Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has
the opportunity for wider discussion.
Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone.
Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ...
On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote:
If there is a close relationship between OSGeo & LocationTech, say where there is a
natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and
look for corporate adoption & contributions, the Steering Committee may see good
value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse
which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to
raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to
direct those funds might make a lot of sense.
These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to
get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential.
Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of
"OSGeo" AND "LocationTech" rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why
that wouldn't work?
Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine.
A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo or
LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of difference,
LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code provenance, digging
through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable licensing issues, trademark
search, and such. The bill of good health that results is seen as desirable by many
companies when considering reuse & investment in the project.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
