Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech
On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has the opportunity for wider discussion. Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone. Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ... On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote: If there is a close relationship between OSGeo LocationTech, say where there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense. These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential. Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of OSGeo AND LocationTech rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine. A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo or LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of difference, LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code provenance, digging through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable licensing issues, trademark search, and such. The bill of good health that results is seen as desirable by many companies when considering reuse investment in the project. Andrew ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech
Andrew, I suggest that the next steps would be to do a gap analysis between OSGeo incubation processes and LT incubation processes. This gap analysis will likely lead to: * Merging of both OSGeo and LT processes to pick up the best points of each. * Identification of the differences, followed by a process describing the migration path from one to the other. Andrew, is this something you are interested to pursue, possibly in conjunction with the incubation committee? On 11/09/2012 12:51 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote: Cameron: There's no reason a project can't play in both LT and OSGeo spheres, and indeed proposed a motion to that effect some months ago now. However, it proved very controversial among some members of our community and I didn't feel it worth fighting at the time. Perhaps more pragmatic heads will prevail as LT gets further along. -mpg On Sep 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has the opportunity for wider discussion. Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone. Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ... On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote: If there is a close relationship between OSGeo LocationTech, say where there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense. These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential. Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of OSGeo AND LocationTech rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine. A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo or LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of difference, LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code provenance, digging through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable licensing issues, trademark search, and such. The bill of good health that results is seen as desirable by many companies when considering reuse investment in the project. Andrew ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Solutions Manager Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 Think Globally, Fix Locally Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source http://www.lisasoft.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech
Hi Cameron, Michael, All Yes that makes good sense, will likely yield tangible benefits. I'm in. I note that Jody Garnett is chair of the incubation Committee and also on the Project Management Committee (PMC) @ LocationTech. (added to /cc) Andrew On 09/10/2012 04:26 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Andrew, I suggest that the next steps would be to do a gap analysis between OSGeo incubation processes and LT incubation processes. This gap analysis will likely lead to: * Merging of both OSGeo and LT processes to pick up the best points of each. * Identification of the differences, followed by a process describing the migration path from one to the other. Andrew, is this something you are interested to pursue, possibly in conjunction with the incubation committee? On 11/09/2012 12:51 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote: Cameron: There's no reason a project can't play in both LT and OSGeo spheres, and indeed proposed a motion to that effect some months ago now. However, it proved very controversial among some members of our community and I didn't feel it worth fighting at the time. Perhaps more pragmatic heads will prevail as LT gets further along. -mpg On Sep 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org wrote: On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has the opportunity for wider discussion. Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone. Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ... On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote: If there is a close relationship between OSGeo LocationTech, say where there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense. These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential. Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of OSGeo AND LocationTech rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine. A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo or LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of difference, LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code provenance, digging through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable licensing issues, trademark search, and such. The bill of good health that results is seen as desirable by many companies when considering reuse investment in the project. Andrew ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of OSGeo AND LocationTech rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? Any organisation that exists as a federation of smaller projects should have procedures for inclusion and exclusion from the group, whether that exclusion is at the request of the subgroup or forced removal by the overall management. Such procedures may not have stopped the American Civil War, but that does not make them useless. Such organisations may also wish to specify exclusivity in their membership clauses, although such clauses are hard to write since at the time of codification the other organisations may not exist, and a wide ranging members may not also be a member of any other organisation that the government says may be unenforcable. I am not a lawyer, but I did date a girl with a law degree and in idle moments I did get through most of a book on contract law. Barry ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech
Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has the opportunity for wider discussion. Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ... On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote: If there is a close relationship between OSGeo LocationTech, say where there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense. These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential. Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of OSGeo AND LocationTech rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Solutions Manager Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 Think Globally, Fix Locally Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source http://www.lisasoft.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
