I've no problem people discussing this - just them expecting to influence decision makers :-)
Ian On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:43 PM Pericles Nacionales <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have thought discussions like this is perfect for this list. It is > of general interest and it reaches a lot more people. I'd say discuss away. > > -Perry > On Jul 30, 2015 11:28 AM, "Dan Ames" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fascinating discussion, though I agree with David that is belongs on the >> Standards Committee mailing list. Thanks for the enlightening info though! >> - Dan >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12 AM Steve Swazee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> *From:* Ian Turton [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:40 AM >>> *To:* Swazee, Steve <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, >>> and All the Rest >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Now that I have your attention, I believe you and the rest of the OSGeo >>> community would be well served by spending some time truly learning about >>> this issue. In so doing, I’m sure the open minds among you will come to >>> the conclusion that USNG/MGRS is the answer to the issue I am addressing. >>> OSGeo could do the world a heap of good in doing so. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fascinating as this discussion is I can't help wondering if you (as a >>> group) are confused as to what OSGeo does? - we write software and if you >>> publish a standard there is a fair chance we will write some code to >>> integrate that code into our software, especially if there is user demand. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I expect you are preaching to the wrong people - either we care or we >>> don't but most of us have no power to change the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
