Hi Venka, Thanks for your kind reply and picking up the Paris-conversation.
As Michael rightfully refers to, and all involved will understand; the MoU (or any other type of agreement) has to reflect the interests and concerns/challenges of both organisations. We both have our members to take into account, on behalf of which we act and speak. You are dealing with a membership of a multitude of individuals, I speak on behalf of a group of projects and businesses. Two sometimes different and other times very alike interest groups. Actually, I don't envy you ;-) At the same time, we are already working together on so many occasions, events, projects etc. That has grown incrementally, bottom up and as part of a do-ocracy. It has proven to be quite successful and I don't intend to have too much red tape interfere with all the good stuff that is happening. With OSGeo doing so much in the field of outreach and advocacy and LocationTech providing a market place for techno-commercial entities, both working on a multitude of interconnected projects, with overlapping communities......that is a really powerful combination. We have a world to win! Kind regards, Marc Vloemans > Op 18 aug. 2017 om 07:34 heeft Michael Smith <michael.smith.e...@gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven: > > Venka, > > This is something we discussed quite a bit at both the Boston F2F and at > the LocationTech meeting that I was invited to attend. It was agreed that > we all wanted to work together on the MoU but to also work closer together > on the process so it reflects interests and concerns on both sides. Norman > Barker will be attending some OSGeo board meetings to continue the > discussions and I will be attending some LocationTech meetings as well. We > need to keep discussing this both at the meetings and on the list to > continue forward with what is already a very good working relationship. > > Mike > > ---- > Michael Smith > OSGeo Foundation Treasurer > treasu...@osgeo.org > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Venkatesh > Raghavan <ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> > Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 at 2:41 AM > To: Marc Vloemans <marcvloema...@gmail.com>, Helmut Kudrnovsky > <hel...@web.de>, OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Collaboration is the way > forward: Note the LocationTech badge is not showing correctly > Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil> > >> Hi Marc, >> >> Many thanks to LocationTech for supporting >> OSGeo events and code sprints. >> >> As discussed with you at FOSS4G-Europe last month, >> we could consider going beyond the "informal" partnership >> between LocationTech and OSGeo Foundation and having >> a MoU. I think this would help to answer some of the questions >> that Helmut has raised and avoid any misunderstandings >> in the future. >> >> I had sent you some suggestions on drafting an MoU that you can >> go through and perhaps, find time to discuss f2f with OSGeo board >> members attending FOSS4G-Boston. >> >> Best >> >> Venka >> >>> On 2017/08/18 6:23, Marc Vloemans wrote: >>> Dear Helmut, >>> >>> I am also a charter member. And much more in our ever-growing and >>> evolving community. >>> >>> LocationTech is a partner of OSGeo, we work on various joint projects, >>> LocationTech is sponsor of OSGeo code sprints, we work together for many >>> years on FOSS4G North Amerika. We do valuable complementary work >>> regarding community and market development. >>> >>> All this has been achieved over the years incrementally and by the >>> efforts, care and vision of many directly involved. An achievement, that >>> by raising a discussion as you propose >>> >>> Your confusion thus confuses me (besides Chair of the Marketing >>> Committee, former Board member of OSGeoNL, member of the LOC FOSS4G >>> 2016, Chair of FOSS4G North Amerika and ........ Director Ecosystem >>> Development Eclipse Foundation with special focus on its Industry >>> Working Group LocationTech. >>> >>> Your comments are actually turning back the clock. >>> >>> If you may remember, in the recent past some very unfortunately >>> misunderstandings have created a we/them atmosphere. The present FOSS4G >>> in Boston proves we are as an inclusive community moving forward. >>> Towards unimaginable opportunities. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Marc Vloemans >>> >>> >>>> Op 17 aug. 2017 om 15:19 heeft Helmut Kudrnovsky <hel...@web.de> het >>>> volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>> (Taken from >>>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-August/0354 >>>> 53.html)Blocked >>>> >>>> "Note the LocationTech badge is not not showing correctly" >>>> >>>> now I am, as an OSGeo charter member, really really confused about >>>> this. >>>> >>>> What I'm really missing here is an open discussion and decision making >>>> how we, as an organisation OSGeo, going forward to promote projects >>>> from other organisations. >>>> >>>> What is the added value for OSGeo to promote locationtech projects? >>>> Will locationtech also promote OSGeo projects? Why not promote projects >>>> from any other org? Who will decide which project or other org will be >>>> promoted?.... >>>> >>>> Too many open questions without any sound background for me as an >>>> OSGeo charter member. >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> Helmut >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
