On 1/4/08, Nick Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Puneet, you say: > > > > > Perhaps you don't care too much about the relations between the open > > > > source community and the "super elite and private VGI-dubbing" group > > > > that met at Santa Barbara, but, if you do, please note that statements > > > > like this are needlessly alienating. > > But then you say: > > > OSM -- as far as I know, OSM > > is a rag-tag group of volunteers, and Steve represented his own > > company, Cloudmade, which, as is evident from their website, is m > > Pot kettle black?
Nick, you are conflating two separate emails with two separate contexts, and that does nothing constructive, and serves to elongate a stupid thread rather than a worthwhile discussion. My OSM-related remark was in response to > And not super-elite? Look at the list of attendees you summarized, > bunch of super-dupers in Geo world! :) (and not in a bad way). And > every participant is affiliated with a large institution (yes, even > Steve with OSM) In that spirit, my OSM-remark was the very opposite of denigrating. On the other hand, if OSM indeed sees itself as one of the "super-elite" and "a large institution" then my remark about "Steve with OSM" was misplaced. My apologies. If not, let's let go of this thread. > > > On Jan 3, 2008 8:38 PM, P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/3/08, Andrew Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 1:41 PM, P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Andrew, > > > > > > > > Perhaps you don't care too much about the relations between the open > > > > source community and the "super elite and private VGI-dubbing" group > > > > that met at Santa Barbara, but, if you do, please note that statements > > > > like this are needlessly alienating. > > > > > > > > The meeting was well announced in various forums, including, I > > > > believe, on Geowanking. The meeting was open to everyone who submitted > > > > a position paper and application and got selected -- they had about > > > > 35-40 folks from all over the spectrum -- private industry (ESRI, > > > > Teleatlas, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo...), academia (too many to list), > > > > open source (myself, Steve Coast...), government (well, at least US > > > > govt. -- CIA, NGIA, CERL, Los Alamos National Labs), non-profit > > > > (National Geographic...). I don't consider myself super elite nor > > > > private, yet I was there. This was indeed the first, afaik, attempt by > > > > academia to recognize this "phenomenon" that we, in the open source > > > > community, have been living for the past many years. Nevertheless, it > > > > just seems bad form to disabuse or denigrate this initiative in any > > > > way whatsoever. Glib criticism is just that, nothing more. > > > > > > I apologize, my query was mis-interpreted. It was semi-tongue-in-cheek > > > jibing - at least in the specific words used. I was asking for an > > > summary, but I will offer the alluded to, non-glib criticism. > > > > > > I did think of the workshop as fairly 'exclusive' as opposed to > > > 'inclusive', being that it was limited in audience size and required > > > approval by a committee (of 2?) to attend. This does in fact make it > > > 'private'. I can understand reasons why this may be beneficial, at > > > least to promote a quality meeting, but at least admit that was the > > > reason. > > > > Sorry, but I will not admit to any such thing. Any meeting has to be > > limited in size. A hotel or any other venue can only accommodate so > > many people. Even FOSS4G had some kind of a limit no? This was meant > > to be a "meeting" not a "conference." Anymore than 30-40 folks and it > > would have become too difficult to orchestrate. > > > > Committee of 2 versus committee of 20 doesn't make any difference. > > First, I don't know for a fact who was on the approval committee > > (besides Mike Goodchild), so I won't resort to hearsay. Second, how > > does that matter? The event was advertised to everyone, it was open to > > everyone with the same rules -- submit a position paper and a CV, and > > attend if accepted. Fair enough. There was a well advertised deadline, > > that you admit that you missed. > > > > > It was my own fault in submitting after the deadline and being > > > told the workshop was full. > > > > > > And not super-elite? Look at the list of attendees you summarized, > > > bunch of super-dupers in Geo world! :) (and not in a bad way). And > > > every participant is affiliated with a large institution (yes, even > > > Steve with OSM) > > > > I am flattered to be grouped in with the super-elite. I do hope some > > will start thinking that I am that... maybe I can monetize my > > eliteness and become richer. Steve with OSM -- as far as I know, OSM > > is a rag-tag group of volunteers, and Steve represented his own > > company, Cloudmade, which, as is evident from their website, is made > > up of about 3 employees. Well, I should let Steve speak for himself. > > > > Anyway, let's move on to some constructive discussion of what next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my summary of the two days of meeting. I hope this helps > > > > capture what happened in that "VGI-dubbing" session -- > > > > > > > > > > I really do appreciate the very comprehensive summary. So far, the > > > endeavor had felt kind of like a "academia now deigns to acknowledge > > > this emergent behavior" (as you inferred) and, at least speaking with > > > in my experience in academia, seeks to affix a new label to it. Other > > > articles/blogs have issued the same sentiment. Was there any > > > discussion of the differences between "Volunteered" and > > > "User-Generated" GI, because they are not the same thing, but there is > > > meaning in the distinction. > > > > > > I hope and look forward to more open discussion and presentation > > > around this topic and products from the workshop (and not just a $32 > > > per digital copy article from GeoJournal. :) - We don't all belong to > > > research institutes or large companies that have unlimited access. ) > > > > > > Anyways, I'll curtail my glibness in future criticisms ;) > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > -- > > Puneet Kishor > > http://punkish.eidesis.org/ > > Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies > > http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ > > Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) > > http://www.osgeo.org/ > > Summer 2007 S&T Policy Fellow, The National Academies > > http://www.nas.edu/ > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Geowanking mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > > > > > > -- > Nick Black > -------------------------------- > http://www.blacksworld.net > -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ Summer 2007 S&T Policy Fellow, The National Academies http://www.nas.edu/ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
