+1
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Eli Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > Vasile, > > Great work pulling this together. > > We keep calling this discussion things like "Charter member elections" > and addressing it during election periods. I think that topic is > really something else, "the nature and types of OSGeo Membership" or > something similar. > > If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard > "Participants" as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on > the email lists, projects, events, etc). Just as the "Participants" > are a success, I think that "Members" are a near complete failure [52] > [53] in their current form, I think that "Charter Members" are working > well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being > people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter > members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover. Charter > membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional > connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate. Based on > this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with > "participants", end "membership" since it failed, and refine "Charter" > so that is works better. > > What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many. > Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have > been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years): > > Members simply self identify as members on the wiki. > > Charter members are nominated and elected. They do what they see fit > when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo. > It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good > work. > > What a "Charter Member" is is a matter of endless debate but the very > practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter > Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members). > It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the > organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board > and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to > participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome. > > By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is > that: > 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS > software through the world) > 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal > attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and > additional Charter Members > 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would > first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it <--this is > really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that > people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose > (even if necessary). > > > > In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like: > > "OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed" "Agree or Disagree > 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree" > > "The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation > in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c) > give members a sense of identity and cohesion d) > other_________________________" > > "Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization > is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding > against an unlikely event c) other_____________" > > "Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b) > voting members c) electors d) other _____________" > > "Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige > instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership > is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other > badge system d) other ________" > > "The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low > number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates > available c) other _________" > > and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership > > I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding > against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover. Other than that > very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that > all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people > as possible. > > Best regards, Eli > > [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership > [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member -- > fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as "Members" > [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan, > > > > Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of > digital > > archeology :) > > > > Dear all, > > > > I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a > > survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and > finally, > > if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members. > > > > Best, > > Vasile > > > > > > On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an > >> interesting read). > >> > >> Are you planning to draft sample questions and tick box answers to be > >> commented on before being put to the vote? > >> > >> Cheers Cameron? > >> > >> On 30/06/2015 10:39 pm, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote: > >>> > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> Hash: SHA1 > >>> > >>> Vasile, > >>> thanks from here too for this very useful recap. I posted it more or > >>> less verbatim to the discussion page of the Charter Members article in > >>> the Wiki: > >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Membership_Process > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All, > >>> on the OSGeo Wiki we currently have 605 "self categorized" OSGeo > members: > >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:OSGeo_Member > >>> > >>> This is the best we can currently do for anybody who is interested in > >>> becoming an OSGeo member apart from subscribing to the Discuss mailing > >>> list or being nominated as a "Charter Member" to be then elected by an > >>> eclectic group of geospatial whizzes. > >>> > >>> Just to reiterate: "Charter Members" are usually those who set up the > >>> charter of an organization: > >>> "A charter member of an organization is an original member; that is, > one > >>> who became a member when the organization received its charter." > >>> - From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter > >>> > >>> After signing the Charter they can continue to participate actively in > >>> the organization, go away or even die - without any of this actually > >>> changing the Charter. > >>> > >>> What is OSGeo's Charter? My guess is that the section "About the Open > >>> Source Geospatial Foundation" contains what we would consider our > >>> Charter. > >>> > >>> As a legal body incorporated in Delaware, USA we needed to implement > how > >>> the newly founded organization should support this charter. This has > >>> been written into the bylaws: > >>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html > >>> > >>> In "ARTICLE VII Members" of our bylaws we specify how we plan to manage > >>> membership. There is no talk of "Charter Members", just "members". > >>> Looking at what we did almost 10 years ago it was probably the right > >>> thing to do at that time. But it may be good for an update. My > >>> suggestion is to change this section into regular membership and remove > >>> the self-pollinating aspect. At the same time we could update our > >>> "About" section into a proper Charter and then go ahead and operate as > >>> any regular member association. > >>> > >>> On a personal note: I do not see any danger of a hostile take-over. > This > >>> was an important catch we put into the DNA of OSGeo when we founded it. > >>> There never was a hostile take-over and I cannot really see it coming. > >>> We are big enough to not need to fear this anymore. And we would make > >>> OSGeo a much more open and welcoming organization if we moved away from > >>> this somewhat strange self pollinating system. > >>> > >>> I am not really passionate about this and only consider it an overdue > >>> maintenance patch to how OSGeo functions. If there is no broad interest > >>> I am happy to drop the ball, otherwise I am as happy to help build a > >>> more appropriate member mechanism. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Seven > >>> > >>> - -- Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) > >>> OSGeo President Emeritus > >>> OSGeo Founding and Charter Member > >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Arnulf_Christl > >>> > >>> > >>> On 30.06.2015 13:24, Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting OSGeo.nl > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Vasile: thanks for this very useful recap. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A few remarks from a relative newbie as I am ;-) > >>>> - the name of the wiki page with the charter members is already called > >>>> "voting members" ;-) > >>>> - the charter member list grows and grows. Over the year only 1 person > >>>> retired from the charter member list > >>>> - charter membership seems to drift towards a title of honour, > >>>> instead of a > >>>> mechanism for proper board elections and prevent a hostile take-over > >>>> - the voting participant rate for the board elections is low over the > >>>> years: > >>>> 70% - 85%. I would expect 100%! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Therefore, I'd suggest a voting membership with: > >>>> - a fixed number of seats (e.g. 72) > >>>> - with a certain numbers of seats reserved for each region [51], > >>>> (e.g. 6*6, > >>>> and thus 36 remaining "wildcard"-seats). > >>>> - in case of not enough candidates, or note enough votes for a > candidate > >>>> from a certain region, seats can remain empty > >>>> - a 3 term (instead of a lifetime membership, re-election possible) > >>>> - and a mechanism in which not all seats are elected every year, but > >>>> one-third every year, and thus all seats once every three years > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Just my 2 eurocents, > >>>> > >>>> Gert-Jan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [51] http://bl.ocks.org/jsanz/raw/779f9b9954b92461fa50/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >>>> Van: [email protected] > >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Vasile Craciunescu > >>>> Verzonden: maandag 29 juni 2015 15:08 > >>>> Aan: OSGeo Discussions > >>>> Onderwerp: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections > >>>> > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> First of all, please accept my apologies for the delay in sending this > >>>> message to you and, again, apologies for the length of the message. > >>>> > >>>> Let's start with some basic information about the charter member > >>>> elections > >>>> followed by a little bit of history. I know that many of you already > >>>> know > >>>> the details but the community is quite large now and I find this recap > >>>> useful. > >>>> > >>>> OSGeo charter members [1] are the blood of our foundation. They are > >>>> voted > >>>> into this category by the other charter members. They have the right > >>>> to vote > >>>> in elections for other charter members and for board members. They are > >>>> required to act in accordance with the goals and bylaws [2] of the > >>>> Foundation and have the following responsibilities: > >>>> (1) annually vote for OSGeo Board members; (2) annually vote for new > >>>> OSGeo > >>>> Charter members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile > >>>> takeover > >>>> of OSGeo. > >>>> > >>>> Each year new charter members are nominated (nomination process is > >>>> open for > >>>> the entire community, not only to the existing charter members) and > >>>> elected > >>>> by existing OSGeo charter members, in a process supervised by the > >>>> board [3] > >>>> and operated by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) [4]. > >>>> Non-active members can retire or be removed by board decision. An > >>>> updated > >>>> list with all the current and past charter members is available on > OSGEo > >>>> website [5]. During the years the charter members selection procedure > >>>> suffered minor and major changes as you can see bellow. > >>>> > >>>> OSGeo was created in early 2006 [7]. One of the main outcomes of the > >>>> first > >>>> OSGeo meeting (held in Chicago) [7] was a list of 21 foundation voting > >>>> members (most of them high profile figures of the existing FOSS4G > >>>> projects) and 5 interim directors [8]. Later that month, the first > real > >>>> elections started with a public nomination call [9] followed by a > >>>> vote [10] > >>>> and the election of new 24 voting members [11]. This was followed by > >>>> a new > >>>> nomination call [12] for the remaining four open seats in the board. > >>>> After a > >>>> tight vote, the first four candidates [13] from a list of eight [14] > >>>> join > >>>> the board. > >>>> > >>>> In June, after a f2f meeting, the new board redefined the OSGeo > >>>> membership > >>>> categories as we know today [15]. The voting members are now called > >>>> "Charter > >>>> Members" and they have the right to vote in elections for other > charter > >>>> members, and for board members. The other member categories > >>>> (participant & > >>>> members) have the right to nominate charter board members but they > >>>> cannot > >>>> cast votes. In March 2007, with the approach of the new charter > members > >>>> elections, discussion started about the ned for a CRO position, the > >>>> number > >>>> of new seats (and by who/how the number is decided) and the voting > >>>> procedure > >>>> (e.g. nomination and voting period extend, right to designate a > >>>> proxy, the > >>>> number of votes each charter member can submit) [16]. In June 2007 the > >>>> nomination process [17] started with the aim to elect 15 charter > members > >>>> (the number was arbitrarily selected by the board). During the vote > >>>> [18], > >>>> each charter member was entitled to cast votes up to 15 names from the > >>>> nomination list. It was possible to cast more than one vote to the > same > >>>> nominee (even all 15 votes). > >>>> > >>>> The same voting procedure was used for the 2008 charter member > elections > >>>> (including the number of seats, 15) [19]. However, the nomination list > >>>> included 18 great names [20] and people start asking to accept all the > >>>> names. Again, the method to pick the number of open seats was > questioned > >>>> again. Some people ask not to change the rules during the game and to > >>>> select > >>>> only 15 names. And 15th it was. Ironically, "there was a four-way tie > >>>> for > >>>> last place. So, the 15th person on the list was selected by a random > >>>> process." [21]. > >>>> > >>>> In 2009 the elections [22] followed the same rules but the number of > >>>> seats > >>>> was raised to 30. Though, as before, the charter members were able to > >>>> cast > >>>> only 15 votes. All nominated members [23] were elected as the number > was > >>>> bellow 30. > >>>> > >>>> 2010 [24], brought an important change. Due to lack of time for proper > >>>> organization, it was decided to switch the election order and elect > the > >>>> charter members after the board elections. This way, the new charter > >>>> members > >>>> were not able to vote in the same year were elected. Also, the board > >>>> decided, in a f2f meeting, to "add 10% of existing members each year > >>>> - 10 > >>>> new members this year." [25]. The charter member were able to cast a > >>>> maximum > >>>> of 10 votes using the same rules as before. However, a number of > voices > >>>> noted that the list of nominee [26] had many great names and it was a > >>>> pity > >>>> to cut down to only 10. Some suggested that is time to make some > >>>> changes in > >>>> the charter member selection procedure (e.g. [27]). > >>>> > >>>> In 2011 [28] the elections order remain the same as in 2010. The board > >>>> agreed on opening 20 seats (20% - [29]). Each member were able to > cast a > >>>> maximum of 20 votes using the same rules as before. In the end, 21 > >>>> members > >>>> were elected (all nominees [30]) as it was a tie for the 20th slot > >>>> and that > >>>> still fits within the limits of 20% new charter members set by the > >>>> board. > >>>> The voting participating rate was 65% and some voices ask about the > >>>> charter > >>>> member retirement procedure. > >>>> > >>>> In 2012 [31] the election schedule return to the initial order: first > >>>> charter member and then board. 20 seats were open and the board > >>>> decided to > >>>> accept all 22 nominations [32] as it was inline with OSGeo bylaws (is > >>>> possible to add between 10% and one third of the existing charter > >>>> membership). > >>>> > >>>> 2013 [33] elections followed the 2012 scenario. 30 seats open. 37 > >>>> nominations received [34]. The board decided to accept all the > >>>> nominations. > >>>> > >>>> 2014 [35], the year of the change for OSGeo charter member elections. > >>>> First big change was the implementation of an electronic voting > >>>> system [36] > >>>> to replace the e-mail voting. The selection process itself was also > >>>> revised > >>>> from the bottom. Each charter member received an email with a > >>>> personalized > >>>> url to access the electronic voting system. Each charter member can > vote > >>>> with Yes/No/Abstain for all nominated charter members. > >>>> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than 5% > of > >>>> voting charter members voting YES for them, were included as new > charter > >>>> members. The result was that all 64 nominations [37] were accepted as > >>>> Charter members. For the first time, the board decided to publish the > >>>> elections results on the internet with detail numbers of > >>>> YES/NO/ABSTAIN for > >>>> each nominee [38]. Some concerns were raised about the low threshold > of > >>>> voting charter members voting YES for a nominee. > >>>> > >>>> Now we are getting to the current year. In 2015 [39], the elections > will > >>>> follow the same pattern: charter members and then board members. For > the > >>>> charter members elections, the OSGeo president, Jeff McKenna, propose > to > >>>> change the the above mentioned threshold from 5% to 50% [40]. Jeff > did a > >>>> simulation on the last year votes with the new threshold and > >>>> discovered that > >>>> 45 nominations would be accepted, versus all 64 nominations. The item > >>>> was > >>>> briefly introduced during the board meeting held in June [41]. > >>>> Due to the lack of time, no detailed discussions or vote follow [42]. > >>>> However, a motion on the item was introduced to the board via e-mail > >>>> [43]. > >>>> The board was not able to reach an consensus with six votes to > >>>> approve, one > >>>> abstain and two to reject the motion. Some other charter members join > >>>> the > >>>> discussion but also with split opinions. Some are pro for a more > >>>> exclusive > >>>> charter membership and some are for a easy way to join. A > >>>> consultation with > >>>> the entire community was demanded. For more details see thread > "[Board] > >>>> motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more > >>>> exclusive" on the board mailing list [44]. The thread expanded on the > >>>> OSGeo-discuss mailing list and more concerns were raised. Like: the > >>>> YES/NO/Abstain options should be better explained to the charter > >>>> members; > >>>> ask the charter members to vote on the threshold; the algorithm to > >>>> measure > >>>> the support for a nominee should be modified as Abstain votes are > >>>> counted > >>>> right now as No votes. The "YES / (NO + YES) = percentage support" > >>>> [45] and > >>>> "(YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN) = percentage support" [46] formulas were > >>>> suggested; Arnulf suggested that "charter member" term was misused by > >>>> OSGeo > >>>> in the past and the foundation should embrace a regular membership > >>>> mechanism > >>>> and even ask for a low annual membership fee [47]. > >>>> > >>>> I hope I did not make any mistakes and also did not left important > >>>> information outside this recap. I so, please correct/add points. > Charter > >>>> member elections process is vital to OSGeo, therefore we should > proceed > >>>> further with great care. The time is also not on our side as we need > >>>> to do > >>>> this before the board elections. Until now we have the following > >>>> options: > >>>> > >>>> a. Go with the unmodified 2014 selection process; b. Change the > >>>> threshold > >>>> percent; c. Change the algorithm that measure the support for a > >>>> nominee; d. > >>>> Change both b and c; e. Change the selection process from the ground > >>>> (e.g. > >>>> move to regular membership); e. Other options not expressed until now. > >>>> > >>>> Please take some time, think about the existing voting system and > if/how > >>>> should be improved, and express your opinion here. Thanks to the > >>>> electronic > >>>> voting system we can put your options into a survey and all vote for > the > >>>> best solution. > >>>> > >>>> Warm regards from sunny Bucharest, > >>>> Vasile > >>>> (your 2015 CRO) > >>>> > >>>> P.S. Two personal notes after I did some research about the > >>>> selection/voting > >>>> process in other open source software organizations: 1) all of them > >>>> seem to > >>>> have difficulties in finding the best solution (apparently such > solution > >>>> does not exist); 2) OSGeo is a very transparent organization. > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership > >>>> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html > >>>> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process > >>>> [4] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer > >>>> [5] > http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html > >>>> [6] > >>>> > >>>> > http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/open_source_geospatial_founda > >>>> > >>>> tion_initial_press_release.html.html > >>>> [7] > >>>> > http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/meetings/2006_02_04/meeting.html > >>>> [8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members > >>>> [9] > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000008.html > >>>> [10] > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000073.html > >>>> [11] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000132.html > >>>> [12] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000167.html > >>>> [13] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000314.html > >>>> [14] > >>>> > http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/board_nom_20060314.html > >>>> [15] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership > >>>> [16] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-March/001558.html > >>>> [17] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001964.html > >>>> [18] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-June/002003.html > >>>> [19] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008 > >>>> [20] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008 > >>>> [21] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2008-June/003789.html > >>>> [22] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2009 > >>>> [23] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2009 > >>>> [24] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2010 > >>>> [25] > >>>> > >>>> > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Barcelona_2010#Meeting_Minut > >>>> > >>>> es > >>>> [26] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2010 > >>>> [27] > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-November/008312.html > >>>> [28] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2011 > >>>> [29] > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Denver_2011#Minutes > >>>> [30] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2011 > >>>> [31] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2012 > >>>> [32] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2012 > >>>> [33] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2013 > >>>> [34] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2013 > >>>> [35] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014 > >>>> [36] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting > >>>> [37] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2014 > >>>> [38] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results > >>>> [39] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015 > >>>> [40] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html > >>>> [41] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015 > >>>> [42] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2014-09-13.log > >>>> [43] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012912.html > >>>> [44] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html > >>>> [45] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012945.html > >>>> [46] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012946.html > >>>> [47] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-June/014374.html > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Discuss mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Discuss mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > >>> > >>> iEYEARECAAYFAlWSjfQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2JJACeLfsFZzEGCbQK9bCkfyn8kO5S > >>> mnIAnjZRlV9rRG6DFrZg/PpsVDj8uJ8l > >>> =/hLJ > >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Vasile Crăciunescu > > geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData > > http://www.geo-spatial.org > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
