+1, all good reasons.
On 6/15/10 1:46 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote: > +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] > <mailto:[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 <http://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 <http://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 >
