Tyler Mitchell wrote:
On December 18, 2005 00:05, Lester Caine wrote:
Tyler Mitchell wrote:
So, I'm partly ambivalent about where the project lives, but partly
focused on ensuring that it lives in a place that helps the community
grow as much as possible.
That is perhaps why a tie up with Autodesk raises alarm bells?
Autodesk's intentions HAVE to be in their interest...
I'm not quite sure how we ended talking about Autodesk, I was just making the
point that whether MapServer code is available through UMN or a foundation
(or somewhere else) is really a moot point for me. Of course UMN and
everyone else involved have their own best interests in mind, but that
doesn't mean they are exclusively self-focused, we know that it is not true.
It was more a matter of WHICH MapServer ;)
Are we talking about the engine that currently is called MapServer and
providing a framework for supporting that ( which personally I would
prefer ) or Junior MapServer which is tied up with a product that is not
MapServer and will not run any current MapServer data.
MapServer is surrounded and supported by major financial contributions and
professional developer time that neither you and I pay for. This is why we
need to have a group manage the bigger picture project related affairs and
not just leave it to chance, so that the companies, contributors and users
can work collectively in a slightly more formal manner. At this point, we
are not talking about Autodesk or the foundation or any other product, we are
talking about the MapServer project and how best to move forward.
MapServer as an entity in it's own right is in a strong position. Some
of us are just concerned that the 'appearance' of an 'new' MapServer is
a problem so HAS Autodesk agreed to drop the name. If not then we need
to have a different discussion.
Even if it has nice new tools, I already
have an 'Enterprise' interface into MapServer and don't need the
distractions that an alternative it is creating :(:(
Choice is usually considered a good thing Lester! :) And this new choice on
the block would have come onto the scene regardless of any hopes of working
together.
Firebird has a large selection of third party tools, but they all target
a single project ( now ). The period when there were different
development plans and split projects was a drain on resources.
Even just drafting this letter is a distraction that I could do without :(
Really? I hope it is worth the time to discuss and debate the ideas, so that
we can all have some confidence in moving forward. Everyone's opinion about
the MTSC taking on more responsibility is important to have at this point.
But we need to know where we are going before we can have a productive
discussion. And if Autodesk fits into that road map then the rules change?
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.
