Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest
I've no problem people discussing this - just them expecting to influence decision makers :-) Ian On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:43 PM Pericles Nacionales naci0...@umn.edu wrote: I would have thought discussions like this is perfect for this list. It is of general interest and it reaches a lot more people. I'd say discuss away. -Perry On Jul 30, 2015 11:28 AM, Dan Ames dan.a...@byu.edu wrote: Fascinating discussion, though I agree with David that is belongs on the Standards Committee mailing list. Thanks for the enlightening info though! - Dan On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12 AM Steve Swazee sdswa...@sharedgeo.org wrote: *From:* Ian Turton [mailto:ijtur...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:40 AM *To:* Swazee, Steve sdswa...@sharedgeo.org *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest Now that I have your attention, I believe you and the rest of the OSGeo community would be well served by spending some time truly learning about this issue. In so doing, I’m sure the open minds among you will come to the conclusion that USNG/MGRS is the answer to the issue I am addressing. OSGeo could do the world a heap of good in doing so. Fascinating as this discussion is I can't help wondering if you (as a group) are confused as to what OSGeo does? - we write software and if you publish a standard there is a fair chance we will write some code to integrate that code into our software, especially if there is user demand. So I expect you are preaching to the wrong people - either we care or we don't but most of us have no power to change the world. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Kicking off Elections 2015 process
Hi, I'm looking at the survey too and feel a bit the same as Peter. The first question seems to suggest transforming current Charter membership into regular membership, but following questions seem to leave open the possibility for the 2 kinds of membership. Perhaps the first question should be turned into the following choices - should there be a regular membership only ? - should there be a charter membership only ? - should there be both ? and then questions to define the rights, duties and access conditions for each membership category. Anyway thanks for your efforts to capture opinions. This isn't an easy exercice. Yes/no referendum are more common and even in that case, it seems that the people asking the question cannot always properly interpret the result ;-) Even Hi Vasile all, having tried to fill in the questionnaire I see one main issue: It seems like OSGeo Charter membership = OSGeo membership. Not sure it is intended, as my feeling (which may be wrong) is that a Charter member is more like an advisory board member whereas general membership is where all the enthusiasts come together. Both make sense, but IMHO should be differentiated in the questions. my 2 cents, acting as Guinean Pig ;-) Peter On 2015-07-30 15:46, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: Thanks everyone for feedback. I did my best to incorporate your suggestions in the survey. The Charter members will receive e-mail invitations to fill the survey in the following minutes. If you are a charter member and the invitation fail to reach your inbox in the next couple of hours, please get in touch with me privately. Regards, Vasile CRO 2015 On 7/27/15 3:26 PM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: Dear all, Please accept my apologies for all the delays related to this survey. You can all check the actual structure of the survey at https://survey.des.ucdavis.edu/osgeo/index.php/survey/index/sid/879386/ne wtest/Y/lang/en *Please do not execute the survey!* Separate invitations will be sent to all our charter members as soon as we agree with the survey structure. I have tried to include help text, comments and references for all the important question, especially the one related to the charter member election mechanism - this part may look a little bit bureaucratic, any suggestions fore improvement more than welcome. A simple application was created to allow you to understand the impact of the selected formula and threshold using the last year votes. You can access the application at http://geo-spatial.org/charter2014-sim/ A link was included in the survey too. Any comments, requests for change or to include additional questions are welcome. Please respond ASAP as the time is running fast. Best, Vasile OSGeo 2015 CRO On 7/26/15 8:36 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: So is there a proposal for the survey questions already somewhere? Bart Sent from my iPhone ___ Board mailing list bo...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest
I would have thought discussions like this is perfect for this list. It is of general interest and it reaches a lot more people. I'd say discuss away. -Perry On Jul 30, 2015 11:28 AM, Dan Ames dan.a...@byu.edu wrote: Fascinating discussion, though I agree with David that is belongs on the Standards Committee mailing list. Thanks for the enlightening info though! - Dan On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12 AM Steve Swazee sdswa...@sharedgeo.org wrote: Ian, Hardly confused. Two of three principal originators of GeoMOOSE are on staff. Served as the fiscal agent for FOSS4G NA 2013. Former member of the GITA board of directors. It matters what you program. If you want your software to have utility and gain acceptance, I am suggesting incorporation of USNG/MGRS as a feature would have value. Likewise, it would be providing a service. Per the bombing story attributed to a confusion of mapping standards – concrete example would be beneficial. I used to teach Close Air Support in the USMC and to be certain mistakes happen. It is doubtfully, however, that it was due to none standard cartography among NATO troops, and far more likely due to another issue. Steve *From:* Ian Turton [mailto:ijtur...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:40 AM *To:* Swazee, Steve sdswa...@sharedgeo.org *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest Now that I have your attention, I believe you and the rest of the OSGeo community would be well served by spending some time truly learning about this issue. In so doing, I’m sure the open minds among you will come to the conclusion that USNG/MGRS is the answer to the issue I am addressing. OSGeo could do the world a heap of good in doing so. Fascinating as this discussion is I can't help wondering if you (as a group) are confused as to what OSGeo does? - we write software and if you publish a standard there is a fair chance we will write some code to integrate that code into our software, especially if there is user demand. So I expect you are preaching to the wrong people - either we care or we don't but most of us have no power to change the world. At the risk of prolonging this discussion I'll add the following. Currently I'm not seeing any demand for this from users - I hear a lot of talk about military and 1st responders but the last time I talked to a military guy he was telling hair raising stories of US Army planes bombing UK troops because they both use a grid system but the the US has letters up the side of the map and the UK has letters across the bottom (it was slightly more complex than that but basically that was the problem), so their requirement was for WGS84 coordinates to match their GPS. Ian ___ 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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] We won. It's time for OSGeo 2.0.
I've stayed out of the pre-survey discussions on charter membership and whatnot, but after taking the survey yesterday, I’m starting to think that OSGeo has accomplished what it set out to do some years ago, and as currently construed OSGeo will no longer serve a useful purpose. Back when OSGeo was formed, open source GIS was a new area — islands of people here and there, looking for ways to collaborate on relatively young projects. Recall that hosting source code repositories was a big issue back in the day — but now we have GitHub and the problem no longer exists. Open source, and open source GIS, has reached mainstream acceptance, with lots of projects and lots of communities. To the extent that OSGeo helped get us to the broad level of practice we’re at today, we’ve won. OSGeo has always been about several different things: code development, of course, but also advocacy, education, live DVDs, and more. Open source GIS is now of a size that it is increasingly hard to keep all these interests aligned and under one big umbrella. The domains of these interests areas are large enough that they should perhaps now be looking to sustain themselves as independent projects — not looking to OSGeo for sponsorship or mentorship. Indeed, one of the things from the survey that brought me to this point was the question about whether or not some outside party “taking over” OSGeo was a concern or not… and, upon reflection, it turns out that I’m not the least bit concerned: if OSGeo went away, all the various communities of various sorts of open source GIS — MapServer users, LocationTech projects, GeoForAll initiatives — would just keep on doing their own thing. Where can OSGeo add value? Overseeing the annual international conference? Yes, that’s something that needs to have a home. Beyond that? I’m no longer sure. We won. It may now be time for OSGeo 1.0 to take its bows and exit the stage, making room for an OSGeo 2.0 with a new charter aimed at the world for 2016 and beyond. -mpg ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Data-driven look at OSGeo.org charter activity
. I chose a core piece of infrastructure, download.osgeo.org The following is a list of individual logins, and the apparent date of last activity (on that machine). Since the purpose of download.osgeo.org is outward facing, its probably fair to use this metric in public. (note that since one purpose of libriarianship is to host stable projects, newer is not necessarily better) -- jef, Jul 31 2015 neteler, Jul 29 2015 darkblueb, Jul 30 2015 pramsey, Jul 7 2015 rduivenvoorde, Jun 22 2015 jmalik, Jul 1 2015 chambbj, Jun 18 2015 hamish, Jul 22 2015 rouault, Jul 21 2015 martin, May 22 2015 maphew, Apr 11 2015 hobu, Mar 10 2015 gvsig, Oct 20 2014 jmckenna, Oct 20 2014 msavinaud, Oct 20 2014 moovida, Oct 20 2014 dassau, Oct 20 2014 wildintellect, Jul 21 2015 szekerest, Oct 20 2014 jsanz, Oct 20 2014 epifanio, Oct 20 2014 jlarouche, Oct 20 2014 robe, Oct 20 2014 sbl, Oct 20 2014 warmerdam, Oct 20 2014 gpotts, Jul 28 2015 martinl, Oct 20 2014 aboudreault, Oct 20 2014 gregboone, Apr 17 2015 bfriesen, Oct 20 2014 jdeolive, Oct 20 2014 tbonfort, Jul 28 2015 tomkralidis, Oct 20 2014 rburhum, Oct 20 2014 strk, Oct 20 2014 brushtyler, Oct 20 2014 madair, Oct 20 2014 dmorissette, Oct 20 2014 trevorwekel, Oct 20 2014 kalxas, Jul 13 2015 dburken, May 28 2015 jng, Nov 10 2011 alexbruy, Oct 17 2011 jive, Oct 4 2011 crschmidt, Sep 28 2011 wolf, Mar 27 2010 -- Brian M Hamlin OSGeo California Chapter blog.light42.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] GeoforAll Newsletter and First “GeoForAll” lab of the month - Open Source Geospatial Lab , Kathmandu University, Nepal
Dear Colleagues, We are very happy to inform that the first Geo4All newsletter is now ready at http://opensourcegeospatial.icaci.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Newsletter-vol.-1-no.-1.pdf Our sincere thanks to Dr. Nikos Lambrinos (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece) for taking the initiative to start newsletter for GeoforAll and being the chief editor and his excellent team for making this newsletter possible. Thank you to Antoni, Ela, Emma, Sergio, Rizwan, Pavel, Alexey and Nikos for their help for the newsletter. Thanks to the hardwork of our amazing colleagues and support from ICA, OSGeo, ISPRS , we have been growing rapidly (with over 100 Labs), it is timely that we have our newsletter to share the many developments, events, activities etc from all members. It is also our great pleasure to use this opportunity to highlight the contributions of one lab in each newsletter issue to help all of us learn more about our members, share ideas and build collaborations for the future. It is my great pleasure, to introduce our colleagues at the Open Source Geospatial Lab , Kathmandu University, Nepal [1],[2] as our first “GeoForAll” lab of the month. We are especially grateful for the work and relief efforts done (and still doing) after the terrible earthquakes by our colleagues in Kathmandu University lead by Dr Shashish Maharjan in these challenging circumstances and may God help them to help others in need. Their whole team along with many students and volunteers were key in helping the recovery efforts. Our focus in addition to Universities and Higher Education is also on Teacher Training programs and accelerating the establishment of small GeoForAll labs (with access to internet) even in the poorest and remotest schools worldwide to enable quality education opportunities for all. These GeoForAll labs (tablets or low cost hardware based) in addition to help teach geoeducation will be help bring quality teaching and learning opportunities for all. Technology is a big leveller and enabler for the poorer sections of the society to also be part of the global economy and we should not allow creation of artificial barriers (being forced to buy high cost proprietary software) to deny this opportunity for the bottom billions. It is their right to also be part of the digital opportunities. One of the important decisions made at Como meeting during FOSS4G 2015 Europe was to welcome Governments, Industry, SME's, NGOs etc who support GeoForAll's education mission and criteria to join us as Partners, so we have global network of Open Geospatial Science Research and Education ‘Labs’ and ‘Partners’ to expand more collaborations for the future. We will bring together all key players (Government organizations, Industry, SMEs, NGOs) on the common mission of education and opportunities for all. In spite of all the economic technological developments, it is a sad fact that thousands of schools globally (esp. in developing countries) even today do not have access to even a single computer. Many of these poor schools do not even have a proper library. I am confident if we keep focus, we can achieve the target to enable digital education opportunities (tablets or low cost hardware based) in many of the poorest schools globally in just 10 years time and having this partnership with universities, governments, Industry, SMEs and NGOs is key for this. So even if till now many of these schools did not have access to any proper library or other learning resources, they will now have access to the best digital education resources available globally from wikipedia to MOOCs. Thanks to the unique convergence of some key developments (hardware costs will keep decreasing, internet access will keep increasing even in developing and poor countries, availability of free and open source software, open education resources etc.), we are in the first time in history truly have a real opportunity for making quality education opportunities accessible for all. I have seen this already happening even in some poor government schools in rural India and also many examples in our GeoForAll community from gvSIG Batovi in Uruguay [3] to GIS at Schools [4] etc, has proved that it is possible if we have the will power and determination. I am fully confident that if we are able to focus and bring together the amazing energies and reach of the wider community for our education mission, it will be game changer not just for Geoeducation but for the wider Education also. Access to quality education and opportunities is key for getting rid of extreme poverty and enable broadly shared prosperity for all. Education + Empowerment = Geo4All GeoForAll [5] aims to welcome ideas from the wider community on how we can work together for building global synergies and collaborations for enabling this even for the poorest and remotest schools worldwide to enable quality
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Kicking off Elections 2015 process
Hi Vasile all, having tried to fill in the questionnaire I see one main issue: It seems like OSGeo Charter membership = OSGeo membership. Not sure it is intended, as my feeling (which may be wrong) is that a Charter member is more like an advisory board member whereas general membership is where all the enthusiasts come together. Both make sense, but IMHO should be differentiated in the questions. my 2 cents, acting as Guinean Pig ;-) Peter On 2015-07-30 15:46, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: Thanks everyone for feedback. I did my best to incorporate your suggestions in the survey. The Charter members will receive e-mail invitations to fill the survey in the following minutes. If you are a charter member and the invitation fail to reach your inbox in the next couple of hours, please get in touch with me privately. Regards, Vasile CRO 2015 On 7/27/15 3:26 PM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: Dear all, Please accept my apologies for all the delays related to this survey. You can all check the actual structure of the survey at https://survey.des.ucdavis.edu/osgeo/index.php/survey/index/sid/879386/newtest/Y/lang/en *Please do not execute the survey!* Separate invitations will be sent to all our charter members as soon as we agree with the survey structure. I have tried to include help text, comments and references for all the important question, especially the one related to the charter member election mechanism - this part may look a little bit bureaucratic, any suggestions fore improvement more than welcome. A simple application was created to allow you to understand the impact of the selected formula and threshold using the last year votes. You can access the application at http://geo-spatial.org/charter2014-sim/ A link was included in the survey too. Any comments, requests for change or to include additional questions are welcome. Please respond ASAP as the time is running fast. Best, Vasile OSGeo 2015 CRO On 7/26/15 8:36 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: So is there a proposal for the survey questions already somewhere? Bart Sent from my iPhone ___ Board mailing list bo...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board -- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata. (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
