Count me in on this approach.
Although the Foudation naming seems over long (and not very easy o
remember.)
I don't really have a replacement either, but this method of naming
seems the most logical for explanation to new (and seasoned) users of
MapServer (I mean Foundation) stuff.
bobb
Chip Taylor wrote:
My input (and this needs to be done before the concrete sets on all this:
1. Change the name of the Foundation to something less product-pointed and
more in keeping with the purpose, such as Foundation for Open Source Web
Mapping
2. Add the Foundation moniker to the existing names for the two code bases:
FOSWM Mapserver
FOSWM MapGuide
3. Specify in the charter that no code from any FOSWM may be included in a
commercial product.
My input (FWIW),
Chip "Acronym Man" Taylor
Prepared Response, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary Lang
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] MapServer Foundation - Open Letter
OK. So here's a sincere call for input.
Here's the rub. Regardless of who made the mistake of suggesting it, I
liked the name and agreed that we would go with it, so I'll take
responsibility for MSE.
On the back of that, we - what can now be seen as the TSC-x cabal + 1
ADSK person - started drifting from foundation names that had more
umbrella-like characteristics like osgis.org, mapcommunity, maptools,
etc. and towards something that focuses on what we were putting out
together. Based on the fact that both products were named MapServer in
the root, we went with "MapServer Foundation".
Now let's assume we change the name back to MapGuide. Why would I now
want to cripple any hope of adoption by anybody by putting it in a
foundation (that I helped name) that highlights one map serving product
over another?
So far the community is showing more common sense than we were on this,
so I'm interested to hear your opinions.
Gary
