Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Booth: Thank yous

[Jody Garnett]

It was an amazing booth, some more photos:

- https://flic.kr/p/oZLwY6
- https://flic.kr/p/phgKit

Jody Garnett

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jeff McKenna <
jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:

> Last week's OSGeo Booth at FOSS4G Portland was a huge success.  But not
> without the hard work of people that really need a special thank you, a
> special huge pat on the back:
>
> - Eli Adam[1]: Eli provided a lot of the materials, and helped setup
> laptops/demos etc.  A member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground OSGeo-PDX
> gang.
>
> - Tim Welch[2]: Tim also helped provide materials, organized the display
> of the map gallery, and was around to do anything that needed help with. A
> member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground OSGeo-PDX gang.
>
> - David Percy[3]: David was also around to do anything that needed help
> with.  He even went on his bicycle at lunch to print a flyer for me.  A
> member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground OSGeo-PDX gang.
>
> - Mark Scott[4]: Mark created much interest in the OSGeo Booth with his
> 'bicycle map' (see link below for image).  Thank you Mark
>
> - Alan Glennon[5]: Last but not least, Alan deserves special praise.  If
> you saw the Booth wiki[6], he signed up and manned the booth pretty much
> for the ENTIRE event.  He was a face to answer questions, point in the
> right direction.  There are no words I can say that really says enough
> thank yous to him.  Alan you did great work and the community thanks you!!!
>
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL
> [2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/timjwelch
> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Percyd
> [4] https://twitter.com/jarrettkeifer/status/510148269587324929/photo/1
> [5] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Glennon
> [6] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2014_OSGeo_Booth
>
> These are five more FOSS4G Heroes.
>
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff McKenna
> President, OSGeo
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fixing FOSS4G

[Cameron Shorter]

Dan,
You might want to look over the lessons learned from 2012. 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2012_Lessons_Learned
I respectfully disagree with Michael. I think that early support of the 
China FOSS4G could have steered the event to be a successful, although 
smaller event.


On 20/09/2014 5:47 am, Michael Gerlek wrote:
China would still have failed, but we would have known about it [and, 
hopefully, acted] sooner.


-mpg



On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Dan Ames > wrote:


Again from the sidelines... It would be an interesting exercise to
conceptualize how having a single professional conference
organizing company would have/have not made a difference with the
failed voyage of FOSS4G to China in 2012. - Dan

**
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fixing FOSS4G

[Cameron Shorter]

Dan,
You might want to look over the lessons learned from 2012. 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2012_Lessons_Learned
I respectfully disagree with Michael. I think that early support of the 
China FOSS4G could have steered the event to be a successful, although 
smaller event.


On 20/09/2014 5:47 am, Michael Gerlek wrote:
China would still have failed, but we would have known about it [and, 
hopefully, acted] sooner.


-mpg



On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Dan Ames > wrote:


Again from the sidelines... It would be an interesting exercise to
conceptualize how having a single professional conference
organizing company would have/have not made a difference with the
failed voyage of FOSS4G to China in 2012. - Dan

**
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fixing FOSS4G (was: Hacking OSGeo)

[Michael Gerlek]

China would still have failed, but we would have known about it [and,
hopefully, acted] sooner.

-mpg



On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Dan Ames  wrote:

> Again from the sidelines... It would be an interesting exercise to
> conceptualize how having a single professional conference organizing
> company would have/have not made a difference with the failed voyage of
> FOSS4G to China in 2012. - Dan
>
> **
> Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
> Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
> Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
>
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden]

Thanks Cameron, this really helps!

 

I made a small adjustment so that all suggested option now have there
advantages listed first, followed by their disadvantages. Makes it a bit
more neutral.

 

Personally I would leave out the "voting" sections in this stage (comments
are OK). Just listing the options, advantages & disadvantages seems enough
for now. By the time the're sort of complete, the votes may enter the stage.

(just a thought, I kept the votings in the wiki page anyway)

 

 

regards, 

 

Gert-Jan

 

 

 

Van: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] Namens Cameron Shorter
Verzonden: vrijdag 19 september 2014 14:43
Aan: Steven Feldman
CC: ; conference; OSGeo-Board
Onderwerp: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

 

Ok, first draft of wiki page is here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Options_2014

Please feel free to improve the text, or insert your comments / votes.

On 19/09/2014 6:14 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:

Am I the only person who finds it difficult to follow a thread in a mailing
list where postings get repeated continuously as the thread is replied to
(let alone our tendency to post across several lists - mea culpa)? 

 

Dare I suggest that we seek a simpler and clearer forum for this discussion?
I’m not suggesting abandoning the lists just using a better tool for a
discussion in which we want to engage a lot of people.

__
Steven




 

On 19 Sep 2014, at 02:37, Cameron Shorter  wrote:





I would agree on that, to start in the wiki. But think, if we want to
get some input from the charter members, it should be more active and
structured effort - therefore I propose continue then with google
forms

Another question: of course, I'm talking about goals and OSGeo future,
but FOSS4G is one of OSGeo's most important event, it has "some"
functions, can be decide who it should be organised without knowing,
what we want to do?

J

2014-09-19 8:32 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden :



Hey Jachym,

wasn't Cameron referring specifically to what options we have to
"professionalize" FOSS4G organising?

And you were talking more about OSGeo's goals etc. ?

Also, I think it makes sense to create some content in a Wiki first, and use
that content to create a questionnaire. It's hard to create a good
questionnaire from scratch if the solutions haven't been discussed in detail
and worked on by multiple people IMHO.

Best regards,
Bart

On 19 Sep 2014, at 08:02, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:

I proposed to prepare Google forms for that in other thread. Could have IMHO
more valuable output

?

J

Send from cellphone

--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp

Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org

On Sep 19, 2014 3:38 AM, "Cameron Shorter" 
wrote:




I'll volunteer to start a wiki collating options for the FOSS4G future,
with sections that people can add comments into.
I should have something up for review and contributions within 24 hours.

On 18/09/2014 7:04 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:

Dear All
I agree completely with Margherita. The most of people are asking
themselves what it is happening.
Please who was and is involved, please write the history of what has
happened on a wiki page. When the plot is finalised the charter members
vote.
Maria



Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus - Politecnico di Milano

Public Participation GIS: a FOSS architecture enabling field-data
collection

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2014.887150#.UwPVuIVnib
F



ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications" -
Co-chair - OSGeo Charter Member - ICA - OSGeo Advisory Board Member - SIFET
Scientific Commitee Member



Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALIA)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it
e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it




Da: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
 
per
conto di Margherita Di Leo   
Inviato: giovedì 18 settembre 2014 10.13
A: Jachym Cepicky
Cc:   ; conference;
osgeo-board List; Steven
Feldman
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

Dear All,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Jachym Cepicky
   wrote:




Just noting,

discussion about relationship between LocationTech and OSGeo is here
since 2012 (IIRC). That many people did not pain attention to it
(actually including myself up to certain time), is not fault of OSGeo
.. or LocationTech.

It's just actually boring topic. We are community of (mostly)
developers and users of FOSS4G (not conference, but software in this
case). This sounds like politics .. who would pay attention? So, now
we are here, things are happening, we can finally talk to whole
community, because of this IMHO

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fixing FOSS4G (was: Hacking OSGeo)

[Dan Ames]

Again from the sidelines... It would be an interesting exercise to
conceptualize how having a single professional conference organizing
company would have/have not made a difference with the failed voyage of
FOSS4G to China in 2012. - Dan

**
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

http://ceen.et.byu.edu/content/dan-ames
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Ames
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S0GUCeUJ

**

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jachym Cepicky 
wrote:

> Nice summary IMHO, thanks
> Jachym
>
> 2014-09-17 19:41 GMT+02:00 Darrell Fuhriman :
> > FWIW, what I want to ensure happens is that the issue of partnering with
> > LocationTech does not get conflated with fixing how FOSS4G is managed.
> >
> > What is clear is that things cannot continue to go on as they have,
> > especially if OSGeo is serious about expanding FOSS4G, both in size and
> > scope. I believe the organization it at a cross-roads with FOSS4G, and
> it's
> > a choice between expanding the conference with the help of a
> professional,
> > or letting the conference stagnate (and hence OSGeo stagnate). It is
> simply
> > as large as it can get under the current structure. And given that
> there's
> > already been one flame out, arguably already too big.
> >
> > Unless things change, and change soon, there will be another failure like
> > Bejing. It's that simple. It's past time to grow up and start acting like
> > the conference(s) are OSGeo's lifeline -- which they are.
> >
> > Though one proposed path to adulthood for FOSS4G involves LocationTech,
> it's
> > not the only possible solution.
> >
> > I see three ways to do this, each with advantages and disadvantages:
> >
> > 1) Contract an outside PCO on an ongoing basis
> > 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer
> > 3) Partner with LocationTech
> >
> > I'll address each of these in turn :
> >
> > 1) Contract an outside PCO
> >
> > This is the easiest thing to do. In fact, and this is very important to
> > understand: OSGeo already hires an outside PCO, they just do so from
> scratch
> > on an annual basis, in the most inefficient way possible.
> >
> > If you want the really easy way out, hire the one we used this year. They
> > did a good job at a reasonable price. They were already discussing with
> the
> > Korea team about continuing the contract with them.
> >
> > If you want to be more formal, solicit bids and choose one that way.
> >
> > However you choose, choose with the assumption that the contract is an
> > ongoing one as long as both parties are satisfied.
> >
> > Disadvantages:
> >
> > The only real objection I've heard to doing it this way is that it's
> good to
> > have someone with local knowledge. My response is that this is simply
> false.
> > In fact, we chose our PCO in part based on that assumption. We were
> wrong.
> > Heck, one of them even commented to me that it was a nice change to do a
> > conference in Portland, since they hadn't done so in years.
> > Some lack of flexibility: if OSGeo wants to expand the role (see below),
> > then it requires a renegotiation of the contract, and a general PCO may
> not
> > be the right choice for that role.
> >
> > Advantages:
> >
> > Institutional knowledge. The conference knowledge carries on in the
> > organization, and is hopefully not entirely imbued in one person.
> > Simplicity. We're already doing it -- just poorly.
> >
> >
> > 2) Hire a staff person to be the organizer
> >
> > This is more risk, but also offers more potential.
> >
> > Advantages:
> >
> > Having a staff person allow OSGeo to be more flexible in organizing
> > conferences. Is there a budding regional conference that needs some
> > assistance? We can help with that. Would OSGeo like to foster growth in
> > regions without a local FOSS4G event? OSGeo can do that.
> >
> >
> > Disadvantages:
> >
> > You would only have one staff person, which means more risk of losing
> > institutional knowledge if that person leaves.
> > Potential for no being seen as less of/no longer a volunteer led
> > organization. (Personally, I think this fear is overwrought, but that
> > doesn't make it any less real. OSGeo already outsources jobs which its
> > membership isn't qualified to do, for instance lawyers, accountants, and
> yes
> > even PCOs.)
> > Hiring is hard, and takes time, especially to find a good autonomous
> person
> > to take on this role
> >
> >
> > 3) Partner with LocationTech
> >
> > Obviously in the current context, this is a loaded proposition. I
> appreciate
> > that there's fear of take over or of "losing" FOSS4G and its income. I
> > believe that can be allayed with a properly written contract. There
> seems to
> > be a lot of speculation about what a partnership means, and not a lot of
> > facts.
> >
> > I see 

[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Booth: Thank yous

[Jeff McKenna]

Last week's OSGeo Booth at FOSS4G Portland was a huge success.  But not 
without the hard work of people that really need a special thank you, a 
special huge pat on the back:


- Eli Adam[1]: Eli provided a lot of the materials, and helped setup 
laptops/demos etc.  A member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground 
OSGeo-PDX gang.


- Tim Welch[2]: Tim also helped provide materials, organized the display 
of the map gallery, and was around to do anything that needed help with. 
A member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground OSGeo-PDX gang.


- David Percy[3]: David was also around to do anything that needed help 
with.  He even went on his bicycle at lunch to print a flyer for me.  A 
member of the kick-ass boots-on-the-ground OSGeo-PDX gang.


- Mark Scott[4]: Mark created much interest in the OSGeo Booth with his 
'bicycle map' (see link below for image).  Thank you Mark


- Alan Glennon[5]: Last but not least, Alan deserves special praise.  If 
you saw the Booth wiki[6], he signed up and manned the booth pretty much 
for the ENTIRE event.  He was a face to answer questions, point in the 
right direction.  There are no words I can say that really says enough 
thank yous to him.  Alan you did great work and the community thanks 
you!!!


[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL
[2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/timjwelch
[3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Percyd
[4] https://twitter.com/jarrettkeifer/status/510148269587324929/photo/1
[5] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Glennon
[6] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G2014_OSGeo_Booth

These are five more FOSS4G Heroes.


-jeff



--
Jeff McKenna
President, OSGeo
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna






___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] free software for transport planning

[Ricardo Pinho]

Hi Robert,
Thank you for those references.
As a Metropolitan Transport Authority we need to create macro public transport 
models to simulate, analyse and plan the transport network and services 
provided to the city population.
PTV and other providers, offer very efficient software tools to help on those 
dificult and complex tasks. But they are based on closed source software 
licenses that we, beeing a public administration, should avoid and look for 
open and free equivalent solutions.After a short query I've been able to find 
several aplications (see below).
But I am relative new on this particulary transport area, so I don't know much 
about those alternatives. I really appreciate any recomendations from who 
already used some of these: 

- Simulation of Urban MObility
http://sumo-sim.org/userdoc/Sumo_at_a_Glance.html#About

- Multi-Agent Transport Simulation (MATSIM)

http://www.matsim.org/

- Open Source Sustainable Transport Informatics Platform (OSSTIP) 
http://www.appropedia.org/OSSTIP:_Open_Source_Sustainable_Transport_Informatics_Platform

- Transportation Analysis and Simulation System (TRANSIMS)
https://code.google.com/p/transims/


There are several listing on this subjetct, with many other solutions:

https://sites.google.com/site/cosiopentransportation//home/open-source
http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Web+2.0+-+Recommendations+for+Transport+Planning+Applications


Thank you in advance.
Cheers,
Ricardo Pinho




Em Quinta-feira, 18 de Setembro de 2014 0:01, Robert Cheetham 
 escreveu:
 


Ricardo,

The tools of which I'm aware are focused on transit planning (rather than more 
transportation in general) and include:

 * World Bank Open Transit Indicators - 
https://github.com/WorldBank-Transport/open-transit-indicators - this is a 
project Azavea is developing under contract with the World Bank - we expect the 
initial version to be complete by the end of December
 * Open Trip Planner Analyst - a project that began at OpenPlans and is now led 
by Conveyal - http://www.opentripplanner.org/analyst/

Best,

Robert




--
Robert Cheetham


Azavea  |  340 N 12th St, Ste 402, Philadelphia, PA
cheet...@azavea.com | T 215.701.7713 | F 215.925.2663
Web azavea.com  |  Blog azavea.com/blogs  |  Twitter @rcheetham  and @azavea

Azavea is a B Corporation - we apply geospatial technology for civic and social 
impact
while advancing the state-of-the-art through research. Join us.



On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Ricardo Pinho  wrote:

Hi everyone, 
>I would appreciate any reference about free software solution that covers the 
>range of transport planning - from
 strategic planning to traffic engineering and simulation.
>What I am really looking for is an alternative to PTV Vision for a national 
>level use case.
>Thank you very much,
>Ricardo Pinho
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

[Cameron Shorter]

Ok, first draft of wiki page is here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Options_2014

Please feel free to improve the text, or insert your comments / votes.

On 19/09/2014 6:14 pm, Steven Feldman wrote:
Am I the only person who finds it difficult to follow a thread in a 
mailing list where postings get repeated continuously as the thread is 
replied to (let alone our tendency to post across several lists - mea 
culpa)?


Dare I suggest that we seek a simpler and clearer forum for this 
discussion? I’m not suggesting abandoning the lists just using a 
better tool for a discussion in which we want to engage a lot of people.

__
Steven


On 19 Sep 2014, at 02:37, Cameron Shorter > wrote:



I would agree on that, to start in the wiki. But think, if we want to
get some input from the charter members, it should be more active and
structured effort - therefore I propose continue then with google
forms

Another question: of course, I'm talking about goals and OSGeo future,
but FOSS4G is one of OSGeo's most important event, it has "some"
functions, can be decide who it should be organised without knowing,
what we want to do?

J

2014-09-19 8:32 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden >:

Hey Jachym,

wasn't Cameron referring specifically to what options we have to
"professionalize" FOSS4G organising?

And you were talking more about OSGeo's goals etc. ?

Also, I think it makes sense to create some content in a Wiki first, 
and use

that content to create a questionnaire. It's hard to create a good
questionnaire from scratch if the solutions haven't been discussed 
in detail

and worked on by multiple people IMHO.

Best regards,
Bart

On 19 Sep 2014, at 08:02, Jachym Cepicky > wrote:


I proposed to prepare Google forms for that in other thread. Could 
have IMHO

more valuable output

?

J

Send from cellphone

--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp

Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org

On Sep 19, 2014 3:38 AM, "Cameron Shorter" 
mailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com>>

wrote:


I'll volunteer to start a wiki collating options for the FOSS4G future,
with sections that people can add comments into.
I should have something up for review and contributions within 24 
hours.


On 18/09/2014 7:04 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:

Dear All
I agree completely with Margherita. The most of people are asking
themselves what it is happening.
Please who was and is involved, please write the history of what has
happened on a wiki page. When the plot is finalised the charter members
vote.
Maria



Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Vice Rector for Como Campus - Politecnico di Milano

Public Participation GIS: a FOSS architecture enabling field-data
collection

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2014.887150#.UwPVuIVnibF



ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and 
Applications" -
Co-chair - OSGeo Charter Member - ICA - OSGeo Advisory Board Member 
- SIFET

Scientific Commitee Member



Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALIA)
Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it
e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it




Da: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
 per

conto di Margherita Di Leo 
Inviato: giovedì 18 settembre 2014 10.13
A: Jachym Cepicky
Cc: ; conference; osgeo-board List; Steven
Feldman
Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

Dear All,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Jachym Cepicky
 wrote:


Just noting,

discussion about relationship between LocationTech and OSGeo is here
since 2012 (IIRC). That many people did not pain attention to it
(actually including myself up to certain time), is not fault of OSGeo
.. or LocationTech.

It's just actually boring topic. We are community of (mostly)
developers and users of FOSS4G (not conference, but software in this
case). This sounds like politics .. who would pay attention? So, now
we are here, things are happening, we can finally talk to whole
community, because of this IMHO *is* important topic - two big
organisations are trying to find a way, how to cooperate in the future
for better free and open source software for geospatial! This is good.
If for nothing else, then for clarifying OSGeo's position.



If anyone is wondering why most charter members remained silent 
about the

topic, here i can offer my 2 cents..
It is true that this is a long story, but it's hard to find all the
elements needed for judgement. I'd ask those that have personally 
followed
the steps, to kindly fill a wiki page with the most important 
facts. Another
thing is that, for those that couldn't make it at FOSS4G, it is (I 
believe)
not easy to understand on what exactly the community of charter 
members is
being called to express their opinion. What does it mean "to 
cooperate"

[OSGeo-Discuss] Reminder of the OSGeo google+ Community

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi all,

Just a reminder that OSGeo is on Google+, and what seems to be happening 
is that this page has become a great way for community members to share 
their news (links to articles, applications,...).  I noticed today that 
we're at ~600 members.


http://plus.google.com/communities/105969056638310510633

-jeff




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo & GIS Day...

[Nicolas Gignac]

Hello all,

I saw this interesting post here on OSGeo & GIS Day in 2012:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2012-November/011158.html

I am currently in Africa for one month and someone here is organising an
annual GIS Day in November. He wanted to do a formal OSGeo day with
training session, so I was woundering if someone was able to make OSGeo
part of the GIS Day in their own location? If so, how?

I think OSGeo should be part of GIS Day and show how FOSS4G can be useful
and do some OSGeo software formal presentation & training session with
OSGeo certificate (like ESRI does). I was thinking of also Skype or remote
training session in these parts of the world where local chapter are not
well establish and capacity building is a crucial need.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Nicolas Gignac
ca.linkedin.com/pub/nicolas-gignac/20/690/a42/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

[Steven Feldman]

Am I the only person who finds it difficult to follow a thread in a mailing 
list where postings get repeated continuously as the thread is replied to (let 
alone our tendency to post across several lists - mea culpa)?

Dare I suggest that we seek a simpler and clearer forum for this discussion? 
I’m not suggesting abandoning the lists just using a better tool for a 
discussion in which we want to engage a lot of people.
__
Steven


On 19 Sep 2014, at 02:37, Cameron Shorter  wrote:

> I would agree on that, to start in the wiki. But think, if we want to
> get some input from the charter members, it should be more active and
> structured effort - therefore I propose continue then with google
> forms
> 
> Another question: of course, I'm talking about goals and OSGeo future,
> but FOSS4G is one of OSGeo's most important event, it has "some"
> functions, can be decide who it should be organised without knowing,
> what we want to do?
> 
> J
> 
> 2014-09-19 8:32 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden :
>> Hey Jachym,
>> 
>> wasn't Cameron referring specifically to what options we have to
>> "professionalize" FOSS4G organising?
>> 
>> And you were talking more about OSGeo's goals etc. ?
>> 
>> Also, I think it makes sense to create some content in a Wiki first, and use
>> that content to create a questionnaire. It's hard to create a good
>> questionnaire from scratch if the solutions haven't been discussed in detail
>> and worked on by multiple people IMHO.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>> 
>> On 19 Sep 2014, at 08:02, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:
>> 
>> I proposed to prepare Google forms for that in other thread. Could have IMHO
>> more valuable output
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> J
>> 
>> Send from cellphone
>> 
>> --
>> Jachym Cepicky
>> e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
>> URL: http://les-ejk.cz
>> GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp
>> 
>> Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org
>> 
>> On Sep 19, 2014 3:38 AM, "Cameron Shorter" 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'll volunteer to start a wiki collating options for the FOSS4G future,
>>> with sections that people can add comments into.
>>> I should have something up for review and contributions within 24 hours.
>>> 
>>> On 18/09/2014 7:04 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear All
>>> I agree completely with Margherita. The most of people are asking
>>> themselves what it is happening.
>>> Please who was and is involved, please write the history of what has
>>> happened on a wiki page. When the plot is finalised the charter members
>>> vote.
>>> Maria
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
>>> Vice Rector for Como Campus - Politecnico di Milano
>>> 
>>> Public Participation GIS: a FOSS architecture enabling field-data
>>> collection
>>> 
>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2014.887150#.UwPVuIVnibF
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications" -
>>> Co-chair - OSGeo Charter Member - ICA - OSGeo Advisory Board Member - SIFET
>>> Scientific Commitee Member
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALIA)
>>> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
>>> e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it
>>> e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Da: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org  per
>>> conto di Margherita Di Leo 
>>> Inviato: giovedì 18 settembre 2014 10.13
>>> A: Jachym Cepicky
>>> Cc: ; conference; osgeo-board List; Steven
>>> Feldman
>>> Oggetto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Jachym Cepicky
>>>  wrote:
 
 Just noting,
 
 discussion about relationship between LocationTech and OSGeo is here
 since 2012 (IIRC). That many people did not pain attention to it
 (actually including myself up to certain time), is not fault of OSGeo
 .. or LocationTech.
 
 It's just actually boring topic. We are community of (mostly)
 developers and users of FOSS4G (not conference, but software in this
 case). This sounds like politics .. who would pay attention? So, now
 we are here, things are happening, we can finally talk to whole
 community, because of this IMHO *is* important topic - two big
 organisations are trying to find a way, how to cooperate in the future
 for better free and open source software for geospatial! This is good.
 If for nothing else, then for clarifying OSGeo's position.
 
>>> 
>>> If anyone is wondering why most charter members remained silent about the
>>> topic, here i can offer my 2 cents..
>>> It is true that this is a long story, but it's hard to find all the
>>> elements needed for judgement. I'd ask those that have personally followed
>>> the steps, to kindly fill a wiki page with the most important facts. Another
>>> thing is that, for those that couldn't make it at FOSS4G, it is (I believe)
>>> not easy to understand on what exactly the community

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Polling charter members

[Massimiliano Cannata]

Dear All,
I will try to summarize the discussion points and proposed actions. (Please
correct me, add points or actions i didn't see.)

For all of the point I think we need a clear proposal for change with
motivation, or at least a description of the issues, otherwise we go on
discussing each one with its partial view of the things.

We three topics on the table (maybe in order of time deadlines and in
reverse order of impact on the future of the foundation):


1) *FOSS4G-NA*

Apparently LocationTech is going to organize FOSS4G-NA as co-owner together
with OSGeo (https://2015.foss4g-na.org/).
Here I see two discussion elements:
- Does OSGeo have ownership on FOSS4G event (I think yes, at least morally)
- Does OSGeo as a whole community accept to "share" the FOSS4G event with
another institution? And in this case, based on what decision (why
LocationTech and not another, etc.) and what process?

*ACTION: ?*




*2) FOSS4G*

It has been argued that to organize better FOSS4G events OSGeo should give
a mandate to a single company specialized in professional event organizer.
I don't know the rationale behind this (maybe expand in number of
participants, being more attractive for industry, be more fashinable?) also
because I was not in Portland.
Nevertheless, some discussion on how to make FOSS4G better is in place (I
have to admit that i don't know if better means with more people or with
more content or whatever) and a need for re-factory came out.

*ACTION: **Cameron volunteer to start a wiki collating options for the
FOSS4G future*



*3) OSGeo objectives*

It seems that the OSGeo goals are no more actual or they do not reflect the
direction of the last years. Someone argue that there is a need to revise
and eventually re-define them.
I don't think it is the case, I just think we need a roadmap (Yes like
projects!) to decide which actions OSGeo is willing to start, how to
achieve the objectives and hopefully conclude successfully.

*ACTION: **Jachym volunteer to set up a survey to understand the Charter
member opinion*



Maxi





I

2014-09-19 8:47 GMT+02:00 Jachym Cepicky :

> I would agree on that, to start in the wiki. But think, if we want to
> get some input from the charter members, it should be more active and
> structured effort - therefore I propose continue then with google
> forms
>
> Another question: of course, I'm talking about goals and OSGeo future,
> but FOSS4G is one of OSGeo's most important event, it has "some"
> functions, can be decide who it should be organised without knowing,
> what we want to do?
>
> J
>
> 2014-09-19 8:32 GMT+02:00 Bart van den Eijnden :
> > Hey Jachym,
> >
> > wasn't Cameron referring specifically to what options we have to
> > "professionalize" FOSS4G organising?
> >
> > And you were talking more about OSGeo's goals etc. ?
> >
> > Also, I think it makes sense to create some content in a Wiki first, and
> use
> > that content to create a questionnaire. It's hard to create a good
> > questionnaire from scratch if the solutions haven't been discussed in
> detail
> > and worked on by multiple people IMHO.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bart
> >
> > On 19 Sep 2014, at 08:02, Jachym Cepicky 
> wrote:
> >
> > I proposed to prepare Google forms for that in other thread. Could have
> IMHO
> > more valuable output
> >
> > ?
> >
> > J
> >
> > Send from cellphone
> >
> > --
> > Jachym Cepicky
> > e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
> > URL: http://les-ejk.cz
> > GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp
> >
> > Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2014 3:38 AM, "Cameron Shorter" 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll volunteer to start a wiki collating options for the FOSS4G future,
> >> with sections that people can add comments into.
> >> I should have something up for review and contributions within 24 hours.
> >>
> >> On 18/09/2014 7:04 PM, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear All
> >> I agree completely with Margherita. The most of people are asking
> >> themselves what it is happening.
> >> Please who was and is involved, please write the history of what has
> >> happened on a wiki page. When the plot is finalised the charter members
> >> vote.
> >> Maria
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
> >> Vice Rector for Como Campus - Politecnico di Milano
> >>
> >> Public Participation GIS: a FOSS architecture enabling field-data
> >> collection
> >>
> >>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2014.887150#.UwPVuIVnibF
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ISPRS WG IV/5 "Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and
> Applications" -
> >> Co-chair - OSGeo Charter Member - ICA - OSGeo Advisory Board Member -
> SIFET
> >> Scientific Commitee Member
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALIA)
> >> Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321
> >> e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it
> >> e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> Da: discuss-bo