On 16/08/17 15:29, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
Note that several of these issues are on the list to be discussed with
the vendor today.
There is also the issue of actual OSGeo projects that simply havent
responded to various requests for input. I've had to just add them in
myself so they are there and can be hooked up to the choose a project
wizard. What do we do about projects that have simply atrophied, but
are still considered OSGeo projects?
I *really* want us to adopt the mantra of "Bigger tent, more
people/groups/projects under it" ... Small tent thinking wont get us
very far.
I'm not sure that I've read a lot of small tent thinking. Most comments
were about priorities in the way projects are displayed on the OSGeo
website, not about excluding non-OSGeo (understood here as projects that
have not undergone a formal process to be labeled) projects from the
website.
I agree that the current website does not correspond to what I would
expect. I also am guilty of not having reacted earlier (although you
have to admit that the actual form of the website with actual project
descriptions has only been available to us in the last days). I
personally would also plead for highlighting OSGeo projects more than
what the current form does.
This does not diminish in any way my profound respect and awe in front
of what the team has been able to pull off. I think the reactions on the
list just show how important this work is for everyone !
Moritz
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
