Hi Peter,
It seems you're concerned that the decisions made by a PSC vote wouldn't
necessarily be as good scientifically/technologically good as those of a
benevolent dictator (in this case yourself).
I realise this may be an ironic question, but do you have any scientific
basis for that claim - I'm sure social science must have investigated this sort
of thing? I believe the purpose of the OSGeo incubator is to get the best
outcome for a project, so if there's evidence that that's done via the
benevolent dictator model it would make sense that OSGeo accept such a model
where it's desired.
Cheers,
Jonathan
---- On Mon, 09 May 2016 12:39:14 +0100 Peter
Baumann<[email protected]> wrote ----
Hi Marc,
I understand your position, and I appreciate your thoughtful deliberations.
Still, these are all on meta level, not fact level. This is where voting-based
decisions, rather than scientific/technologically sound decision can lead to a
failure indeed.
-Peter
On 05/09/2016 11:28 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
> Peter
>
> Voting is not the issue for success, acceptance and traction are.
>
> And as my suggestions seem to upset you, then at least read Jeroen
Ticheler's message.....he's been there, done it and boasts several T-shirts by
now.
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>> Op 9 mei 2016 om 09:30 heeft Peter Baumann
<[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Marc-
>>
>> bright minds do not need votes to get heard here, there's no obstacle.
>>
>> Servus,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> On 05/08/2016 04:56 PM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> I did certainly not realise there was such a cultural gap between
academia and open source.
>>>
>>> Also, I gather that bazar style negotiation is not to your liking
not efficient. You perhaps rather have a single representative
speaking/negotiating on behalf of the OSGeo Foundation? Unfortunately, nobody
has that remit within OSGeo. So you need to be more convincing. Presently, a
take-it-or-leave-it attitude has not helped your cause.
>>>
>>> In order to grow 'your' project you are at the end of the day
dependent on additional skills and genius. Not for money, but for free (as in
beer). Just 'open sourcing' your project under the wings of OSGeo to do so
requires some careful consideration of your audience and joint planning in
stead of blunt negotiation. Laying down the law and emphasising how you want
things will IMHO not gain you followers, developers or others to do the hard
Dev work, the (easier, but still volunteer work) management, promotion etc.
>>>
>>> So I invite you to be more appealing to all the bright minds in
our community. Because, as far as this discussion goes I see no crowd jumping
up and say 'I want'....
>>>
>>> To give you another pointer; perhaps a route to a mutually
beneficial solution could be found in the area of license-policy....(please,
give it a thought. It would take a new look at things that could work for all).
>>>
>>> And in case no consensus is arrived at, then consider Cameron and
I and anyone joining in (pro/neutral/contra) as activists for that matter.
>>> Personally, I sometimes tear my hairs out of impatience, when I
see that building consensus takes so long. But during various recent online
discussions I learned a lot as well. From people I consider bright and skilful
even though I do not agree with them. And they give me room to work on what I
think is best, even though they do not agree with a lot I am saying and doing.
That's both courageous of them and humbling for me. So ... the top-down
alternative is flat-out horrifying to me.
>>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>
>>>
>>>> Op 8 mei 2016 om 14:48 heeft Peter Baumann
<[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> Marc-
>>>>
>>>> if we just discuss on meta level we bypass the real facts. It
is not about
>>>> bazaar style negotiation - both sides have laid their cards
open on the table,
>>>> and now OSGeo needs to see what to do with it.
>>>> Also, I note in passing that science is not really understood,
discussion is all
>>>> about money. Maybe look at my mail again, it is about skills
and genius in fact.
>>>> (No pun intended!)
>>>>
>>>> Tot ziens,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> PS: Just to remind, this code of conduct discussion some time
back was not
>>>> guided by a general negotiation, and not even by a vote of the
OSGeo membership
>>>> at large (just some activists).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/07/2016 08:52 AM, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>>>>> @Peter
>>>>> From the discussion I take away the impression that
Cameron et al have tried to keep the conversation going and not close any
doors. You have called that word smithing, which raises a proverbial eyebrow.
>>>>> The fact that you have just turned it into a take it or
leave it deal, is not conducive to a potential win-win.
>>>>> I appreciate your frankness, however.
>>>>> The role of PI is clear; the one who holds the purse
strings has the power. Something most developers are familiar with.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a volunteer I am happy to give time and brain cells to
our mission. Attracting interest, creating adoption, acquire funds for our
projects support (shout out to Jody and Arnulf/LOCBonn) for your project that
has this form of dependency on a single person is not "my-itch". Scratching it
would make ultimately you(r ambitions) better-off, not the inclusive
participative culture of the community at large.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Patrick
>>>>> No disagreement with the daunting task this world faces (I
do not want to leave a mess for my children, nor ruin the globe, which we IMHO
only borrow).
>>>>> But if we justify the means by the end(picture) it gets
tricky. To be invited by a benevolent dictator to be part of the solution seems
less of an appealing proposition. I propose we all go about it in more
incremental steps.
>>>>> Academia and OSGeo go well together. Geo4All for example.
But here I see two cultures clash. And one has held a door open.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>>>> Marc Vloemans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 6 mei 2016 om 23:57 heeft Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)
<[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear OSGeo Community,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems a wonderful opportunity for OSGEO to do a
bit of growing, and stretch those old limbs in a limber-up kind of way. Though
they be not as old as some of us OS geospatial projects!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are accelerating into a new world, one where
climate chaos is a daily experience. We are already witness to the resultant
mass migrations and accompanying specie extinctions, estimated at 200 per day
and rising.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At what point do we embrace our collective need to
work together, encouraging creativity and adjusting adaptability for a world
that celebrates our finite resources. This will take a ^cornucopia^ of open
source solutions, regardless of the path used to grow them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Might OSGEO be more adept at encouraging and
supporting open source geospatial solutions, however they exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A smart quote goes here, but I am at a loss for which
one. Maybe something from the ‘Three Musketeers’ or better yet, a woman, such
as Eleanor Roosevelt “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of
their dreams.” To which I say, without a beautiful future, we shall have none.
Open OSGeo Open. . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether for naïveté or ignorance, much I do not
understand. Humble apologies for that. Regardless, the future awaits our better
nature or she’s not there at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Discuss [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Peter Baumann
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 3:25 AM
>>>>>> To: Cameron Shorter; Even Rouault;
[email protected]
>>>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo
accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried very much to make the situation transparent.
Maybe the notion of Principal Investigator helps here (cf Wikipedia - although
biased towards medical science):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A principal investigator (PI) is the holder of an
independent grant administered by a university and the lead researcher for the
grant project, usually in the sciences, such as a laboratory study or a
clinical trial. The phrase is also often used as a synonym for "head of the
laboratory" or "research group leader." While the expression is common in the
sciences, it is used widely for the person or persons who make final decisions
and supervise funding and expenditures on a given research project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the PI of rasdaman, and that will not change,
also not indirectly through wordsmithing as proposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSGeo is entering new domains with rasdaman, which is:
scientific research projects. Like some other communities, these have existed
long before OSGeo, and have their own ethics, procedures, and rules. It is
unlikely that science will change and give up freedom of research based on its
principles well accepted by the whole community. If OSGeo intends to change
these in general then maybe starting with rasdaman as an isolated item in a
vast universe is not the optimal point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSGeo may find out that it’s very special (although
obviously not unambiguously codified) views constrain it to particular
ecosystems. But I am not imposing nor judging. Just trying to explain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 09:18 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>> Could you please answer Even and Johan's question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm happy to use another term for the governance
model. "Does one person have ultimate control over the project? Or does
ultimate control lie with a committee, possibly with a tie breaker vote
designated to one person or one role (eg chair)?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/05/2016 3:29 am, Even Rouault wrote:
>>>>>> Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a
écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HI Cameron,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> first, as this word has been used too often now, the
current model has nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested
opposite, BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually reading
http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the sentence that cause
trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann
has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie in voting (which
cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter breaks the tie ? If so,
that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased in a more neutral way
to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a named individual).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same
question but this hasn't been answered clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could
gain in clarity by defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays,
etc...) As an example of simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to
show the plain language used):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc /
>>>>>> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html /
>>>>>>
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I
could accept:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific
elaboration _and_ consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless
where it comes from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at
stake here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can
accept a model based on scientific ethics ...or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's
current "benevolent dictator" governance model?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are
managed similarly to your description below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is usually a sage or two amongst the community,
typically someone who founded the project. The sage(s) have more experience
with the project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering
Committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you would understand, building a successful Open
Source community involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual
recognition of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving
extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect and
trust of their community by sharing project governance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are a good open source leader, and it appears
you must be, there is little risk you will lose your current influence on the
project. It’s also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between
yourself and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you
are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little impact on
the final result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance
model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent
dictator" model, I agree with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo
Charter members to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>>>>> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman -
on the contrary, we are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly
thinking about opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much
overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate
responsibility; in practice that means that we openly discuss pros and cons
with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I have not
received any complaint over the years that anybody would not get heard
appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean back (metaphorically) and await
the outcome of the discussion of the experienced developers, and add my nodding
to the group consensus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We regularly try to involve the community in such
design and implementation discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but
feedback invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when looking at
the download figures at www.rasdaman.org.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be worth noting that we have installed
mechanisms for openly commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the
Review URL in the Patch Manager?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it is more about deciding not by election,
but by qualification. Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily
complex; large and experienced companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI have
tried to copy rasdaman, and failed. Therefore, it unfortunately takes patience
for a newcomer to immerse to a degree that allows making suggestions that are
fully backed by the team. That said, we do not attach maturity labels to coders
;-), rather the technical merit of each individual contribution is weighted
carefully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another constraint, of course, are project
considerations- there is a contract behind where ESA, the European Commission,
or whoever-else expects fulfilment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly
cooperative and consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last resort.
Someone has questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite adequate;
I like the diplomacy aspect raised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found this nice description of the benevolent
dictator governance:
>>>>>>
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:
>>>>>> In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is
less about dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure that, as
the project expands, the right people are given influence over it and the
community rallies behind the vision of the project lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another good one from (linked from the above):
>>>>>>
http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they let things work themselves out through discussion
and experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those discussions
themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to an area maintainer
who has more expertise. Only when it is clear that no consensus can be reached,
and that most of the group wants someone to guide the decision so that
development can move on, does she put her foot down and say "This is the way
it's going to be."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent
dictatorship" is a do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or influence,
to lead parts of the projects and where the "dictator" is accountable of its
decision to the community. The key ingredients are the same as other
governance: - Be easy to contribute patches and features - Be open on the
direction of the project - Be forkable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask
the mailing-list and the committer responsible for this part of the software,
not the "dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach is less
formal than with a PSC, but still works the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as
open as a PSC, I think, as long as the project as a good "forkability".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to
have multiple committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I would like
to ask is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third) in command
that could ultimately take care of the project after the dictator's
"end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2 being from the same
company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a bit of variety in opinions. Is
there any other key contributors that the "dictator" refers to when trying to
get inputs and defer technical decisions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Julien
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is kind of a larger topic than just the
incubation committee, but no I do not believe we should. It is a defining
characteristic of our foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects
- but demand that the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits
this ideal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach
as the one true way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on
decisions (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is
a provision for new committers to be added into the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also have an outstanding request from our president
to make the foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less
demanding on our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do
not meet some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter
<[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>>>>>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider
and comment on this question:
>>>>>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1]
governance model for incubating projects?
>>>>>> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Background:
>>>>>> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman
has requested a "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While "benevolent dictatorships" often lead to
successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated projects have selected "equal
vote by PSC members". Someone with better legal training than me might find
"benevolent dictatorships" to be unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws.
[3]
>>>>>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>>>>>>
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>>>>>> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>>>>>> [3]
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand where you are coming from, and your
characterization is definitely correct. While our process is and always has
been absolutely open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and
technically best solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman
to where it stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to get me right, our model is certainly not the
right one for every endeavour. Here it is the most appropriate, and hence we
will keep it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as
such, and many projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to
decide whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case
manifest with rasdaman).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce, Peter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've read through the incubation process
documentation, and can only see one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo
principles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Governance model includes a statement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous
consent based on a free, independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should
such consent exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting
vote." http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model,
which has proved to be an effective model for many open source projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>>>>>>
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo
Incubated projects, which have documented a "vote by PSC" as the defining
governance process. In practice, the PSC community debate alternatives, and if
needed, respectfully revert to reasoned advice provided by the "benevolent
dictator".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter, are you open to changing the governance model
to a "vote by PSC"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with PSC chair
being given 1.5 votes to break any deadlocks. I'd also be ok with PSC chair
defaulting to Peter (as founder), until such time as Peter resigns from the
role." Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>>>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>>>>> LISAsoft
>>>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>>>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>>>> P+61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,
>>>>>> Wwww.lisasoft.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University
Bremen
>>>>>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>>>> mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>>>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:
+49-173-5837882
>>>>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina
epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur
cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer,
AD 1083)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>>>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>>>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>>>> mail: [email protected]
>>>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>>>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>>>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: [email protected]
>>>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>>>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola
incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli
destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>> mail: [email protected]
>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: [email protected]
>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis
ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata,
nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>
>>
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
mail: [email protected]
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
www.rasdaman.com, mail: [email protected]
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec
preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
