Hi Cameron, Michael, All
Yes that makes good sense, will likely yield tangible benefits. I'm in.
I note that Jody Garnett is chair of the incubation Committee and also
on the Project Management Committee (PMC) @ LocationTech. (added to /cc)
Andrew
On 09/10/2012 04:26 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
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
