+1 That makes a lot of sense, especially since different contributing organizations could potentially be bidding at different rates for the same work.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > <html><body> > <p><font size="2">I have talked with Stu some about this and I tend to > agree with his assessment. I think we shouldn't list the actual spec'd out > ballpark estimate on the geonode.org website. As it is the community > website for the opensource project, it is of my opinion that it should be > separate from any actual business deals or funded development on the > project. i.e. A contract between OpenGeo and the World Bank on the project > is a deal between those two entities even if it is funding OpenGeo's > contributions to the project. I think it is perfectly fine for OpenGeo to > list roadmap items on OpenGeo.org that are of interest for development and > the costing estimates, but I think they should be seperate from the > geonode.org website itself. We can list on the GeoNode.org website the > different institutions that are contributing to the development of the > project, and that could link to OpenGeo's GeoNode development page. It could > discourage individuals/groups contribution to the pr > oject via non-external funded mechanisms if the project at its core is the > assumption that all development is funded or funded through a certain > mechanism. </font><br> > <br> > <font size="2">----<br> > Galen B. Evans<br> > Disaster Risk Management<br> > Latin America & The Caribbean<br> > Sustainable Development Network (SDN)<br> > World Bank<br> > 1818 H St. NW 20433<br> > Washington, DC 20433</font></body></html> > > -- Sebastian Benthall OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
