[OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
All, every now and then governance issues pop up in lists and on IRC. I will try to summarizes some of them for those of .us who do not follow all OSGeo communication that closely. One critique is that the board of directors does not make decisions easily and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. Another critique is that some members of the board block decisions due to philosophical[2] musings. It was suggested that in some cases it is better that the board take decisions even if they might be objected to by parts of the community. Some have argued that part of the sentiment underlying this kind of talk is a North American centric view of the world, namely this included Jo, Markus, Me, Myself and I. I for one get this feedback on a regular basis from parts of the German speaking community. This sentiment has lead to a lot of discussion within the GaV which is the existing German FOSSGIS community, a legal entity incorporated in 2001-01-18. It was felt that OSGeo (Main?, Int'l?) was too US (North American) centric in its mindset. What do other "local" communities think about this? And how do you voice your opinion? Do you have a legal representative within OSGeo to voice your concerns? How do you go about this? I believe that some of the sentiment and philosophical musings that has lead to the Board not being very decisive in some matters is actually a good sign and shows that the board is conscious of the mission impossible she has taken on trying to represent the highly diverse community of all Geo-FOSS folks in the world. From my perspective OSGeo (intl, Main, HQ, ?) should try to be the meta level organizational umbrella and should thus also refrain from meddling with local issues as best it can. This includes by far and large all commercial activities. I can only foresee many unresolvable problems coming upon us if we do start to go commercial. Whenever we say We, we must be conscious of who We are. The danger for people "steering" OSGeo is to confuse Me with We. Its so easy: you only have to flip the "W" in We to make it turn into a "Me". Ugh. This looks very much like a Warnock[3]. My hope is that someone will share some more insights from another perspective. I'd like the board and the NA cabal and all see that there *is* a rest of the world - and that incidentally the others are always in the majority. Anyway. Another triviality we need to address are export restrictions. Due to formal reasons OSGeo was required to incorporate[4]. It could have been Togo - home of one of the most active and diverse spatial communities[5]. Or it could have been Switzerland, one of the most neutral (soccer looser) nations or it could have been Canada, home of our president, ED and some of the best software developers OSGeo can muster and also home of our beloved elephant in a porcelain shop[0]. But instead, she incarnated in the US, the most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. Looking at the goals and mission of OSGeo it would have been more logic to incorporate on Earth but funny enough that is not a legal entity suitable for incorporation. It is an undisputed fact that Web communities are spatially unrestricted [6] If .us does not understand this - who on Earth ever could? From this world wide perspective US Export Restrictions are ridiculous and nothing but. But from a legal standp oint - and OSGeo (Int'l, Main, US) is one of our legal incarnations - We do have to abide by these laws and need to develop a policy [7]. The good thing is that this is enough. We are not forced to enforce it by scanning IP's and similar crap. The way Open Source works makes it impossible to control. This has also been recognized by the BIS (painful insight that must have been). Plus we do not have to reinvent the wheel but can follow best practices by Apache, Debian, PostgreSQL, and the like. Therefore it will also not be required to consult lawyers. And it is not a political issue that OSGeo wants to solve for the rest of the world. Warnock. Best regards, Arnulf. [1] http://logs.qgis.org/osgeo/%23osgeo.2008-06-09.log around 15:26:15 [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2008-June/002555.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_Dilemma [4] The inadvertent creation of "The MapServer Foundation" in Delaware, USA is the precedent: http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/osgeo_certificate.pdf [5] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking [0] http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=wie+ein+Elefant+im+Porzellanladen&relink=on [6] http://arnulf.us/Blog on TLDs and location [7] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/US_Export_Restrictions ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But instead, she incarnated in the US, the > most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. So, this raises two actions items: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. - Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off. Both these actions items fall to you, Tyler, could you give us an update? BTW, one of the things at Refractions that made tasking more visible for "go do this" roles, like the sysadmin, was entering absolutely every request and job into Trac before fulfilling it. Does anyone thing a OSGeo trac would help or hinder? It might get a little stuffed up with irrelevancies, but it would at least raise the visibility of "things that need to be done". I assume SAC is already running one of their own? P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One critique is that the board of directors does not make decisions easily > and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. A consensus decision making process necessarily limits the scope of an organization to the minimal vision, the place where everyone's beliefs intersect, which can be quite small indeed. Tyler has been doing well at rolling in some sponsors over the last months, I hope that as ED he feels he can bring some proposals forward in the coming months to spend that money and some of the FOSS4G money in effective ways. That you see our inability to do things as a good thing only speaks to your minimalist vision, what you want to do, and what OSGeo can do, line up pretty OK, I guess. I see OSGeo pissing away chances to galvanize open source in the marketplace, to spur the kind of credibility that will float all our boats. You say potato, I say potato. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
I interrupt here to point out that of late the Board has been faced with some significant questions about the aim and scope of our organization. This is a good thing: it is what the Board is there for. We the Charter Members are tasked with electing new board members shortly, and thus have a chance to directly influsence those discussions. I look forward to seeing those nominated put forward their positions on these issues so we can all vote knowledgably. -mpg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:28 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One critique is that the board of directors does not make > decisions easily > > and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. > > A consensus decision making process necessarily limits the scope of an > organization to the minimal vision, the place where everyone's beliefs > intersect, which can be quite small indeed. > > Tyler has been doing well at rolling in some sponsors over the last > months, I hope that as ED he feels he can bring some proposals forward > in the coming months to spend that money and some of the FOSS4G money > in effective ways. > > That you see our inability to do things as a good thing only speaks to > your minimalist vision, what you want to do, and what OSGeo can do, > line up pretty OK, I guess. I see OSGeo pissing away chances to > galvanize open source in the marketplace, to spur the kind of > credibility that will float all our boats. You say potato, I say > potato. > > P. > ___ > 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] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
Interesting Aside. Could the CRO perhaps ensure there's a way to Q&A with the board nominees during the process? Perhaps a list of questions at the top of the wiki page, and nominees can answer as few/many of them as they like in their own page sections. P On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I interrupt here to point out that of late the Board has been faced with > some significant questions about the aim and scope of our organization. > This is a good thing: it is what the Board is there for. > > We the Charter Members are tasked with electing new board members > shortly, and thus have a chance to directly influsence those > discussions. I look forward to seeing those nominated put forward their > positions on these issues so we can all vote knowledgably. > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
2008/6/12 Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Interesting Aside. Could the CRO perhaps ensure there's a way to Q&A > with the board nominees during the process? Perhaps a list of > questions at the top of the wiki page, and nominees can answer as > few/many of them as they like in their own page sections. This is getting close to what Debian does (no prejudice) I guess it is just the best way to run such a diverse community (both Debian and US) FYI: The Debian Constitution has procedures for election that are quite sane: http://www.us.debian.org/devel/constitution#5 -- Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I for one get this feedback on a regular basis from parts > of the German speaking community. This sentiment has lead to a lot of > discussion within the GaV which is the existing German FOSSGIS community, a > legal entity incorporated in 2001-01-18. It was felt that OSGeo (Main?, > Int'l?) was too US (North American) centric in its mindset. I think the Brazilian community probably has a stronger beef than the Germans, but I don't see how anything short of a babelfish is going to resolve the fairly intractable barrier of language to the growth of communities of shared interest. If most of the participants in a group are of a shared background, that cultural and linguistic background will dominate the conversation. If there were more Germans involved, there would be a more German perspective (heaven forfend). Chicken, meet egg. Are there concrete issues that can address this, because I'm not going to get worked up over matters of perception that are out of my control. I cannot make more Germans join, and I cannot become German myself through sheer force of will. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Fundraising
I stole the following snippet from another of Paul Ramsey's posts. I thought it belonged in a separate thread: Paul wrote: "Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off." I've never seen any type of fundraising plan. Do we have one? If we want to take advantage of our tax-exempt status do we have a list of American companies that might be possible contributors and might also be interested in a tax write-off? Do we need to assemble a team to handle fund-raising efforts? After all, I'm sure that Tyler has his hands full with the Journal and other items... Another thing I've been curious about is how any funds raised will be spent or dispersed. I know we need to pay Tyler's salary. What other things do we need to pay for? Do we help fund the FOSS4G conference? Do we fund work/infrastructure for specific projects? I'd like to learn more about this. I think a web page geared towards potential contributors with a concise explanation of how duns are spent would be an aid to fundraising efforts, if we will ever have any. Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:20 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But instead, she incarnated in the US, the > most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. So, this raises two actions items: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. - Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off. Both these actions items fall to you, Tyler, could you give us an update? BTW, one of the things at Refractions that made tasking more visible for "go do this" roles, like the sysadmin, was entering absolutely every request and job into Trac before fulfilling it. Does anyone thing a OSGeo trac would help or hinder? It might get a little stuffed up with irrelevancies, but it would at least raise the visibility of "things that need to be done". I assume SAC is already running one of their own? P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 2008/06/12 8:56 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote: Anyway. Another triviality we need to address are export restrictions. Due to formal reasons OSGeo was required to incorporate[4]. It could have been Togo - home of one of the most active and diverse spatial communities[5]. Or it could have been Switzerland, one of the most neutral (soccer looser) nations or it could have been Canada Many shipping companies have their ships registered under a "flag of convenience". Should OSGeo consider setting sail in that direction? Are there practical matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? -- Dave Patton CIS Canadian Information Systems Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ OSGeo FOSS4G2007 conference: Workshop Committee Chair Conference Committee member http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Dave Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are there practical > matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter > or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from > being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? Yes, it's work to be an entity. We're having enough trouble with the work involved in being an entity just one jurisdiction, adding more just adds more rules to follow and forms to submit. If the work involved and rules of the USA are too overwhelming, I could see changing to a different jurisdiction, but there would have to be a good reason to ditch all the effort invested thus far. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] The Germans and The Brazilians...
I would like to add two (2) brief comments about the issue if "American" influence in the OSGeo, and the role members from other language groups/nations play in the organization. The first comment is about utilizing the mechanism for local chapters. Perhaps this is a vehicle that members from other language groups or nations can use to accomplish more of their own goals under the OSGeo umbrella? It seems that OSGeo is pretty flexible about the shape that local chapters take. Why couldn't a group in Brazil or Germany form a local chapter of the OSGeo that is incorporated in their nation to pursue not only a common OSGeo agenda, but a local or national agenda as well? They could even incorporate their local chapter in there own country, and thus take advantage of their own tax laws and software export policies. In this sense you get out of the OSGeo what you put into it. My second comment has to do with the role/responsibility we as native English speakers/Americans/Canadians have to reach out to the international community. The reality is that the software world is dominated by the western world and the English language. (How many programming languages do you know of that are written in Russian?) :] As has been mentioned before, there is likely more potential for growth in FOSS4G in developing nations than there is in the Western World, at least at this point in time. This is something we should take advantage of. Perhaps we could have a discussion with our members from outside Canada and the United States to see what there primary concerns are, and what we could do to encourage the growth of FOSS in their part of the world. I will point out that one reason OpenJUMP has been as successful is because of it's support of a worldwide community. This includes great efforts to translate the user interface into other languages and respectfully welcome people from all places. The last time I checked we had participants from Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, and even China. Without these international contributors OpenJUMP would be a shadow of its current self. In many ways our European members have carried the program forward from its origins in Canada. Landon Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Germans and The Brazilians...
2008/6/12 Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > take. Why couldn't a group in Brazil or Germany form a local chapter of the > OSGeo that is incorporated in their nation to pursue not only a common OSGeo As for Brazil, incorporating was ruled out early on, IIRC, mainly because of the high cost of running any sort of NGO or company here. At least 5k USD/year, just to exist. -- Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Language
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reality is that the software world is dominated by the > western world and the English language. (How many programming languages do > you know of that are written in Russian?) :] I hope a Russian answers, because given the split between the Soviet and western worlds in the early years of computing, I am sure there must be several. Of course, our lack of knowledge is merely proof positive of our insularity. One of the things I found interesting reading the gvSIG code base is how the variable and class names are in Spanish, but (necessarily) the language keywords (for, if, while, then, protected, static) are English. It makes for an interesting soup. P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Language
Paul Ramsey wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The reality is that the software world is dominated by the western world and the English language. (How many programming languages do you know of that are written in Russian?) :] There's always APL - not Russian, but then not any other natural language either. -- Miles R. Fidelman, Director of Government Programs Traverse Technologies 145 Tremont Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 857-362-8314 www.traversetechnologies.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Germans and The Brazilians...
Dear "sunburned" Landon ;) This is a very interesting topic. Two broad comments 1) on the "*vehicle that members from other language groups or nations can use to accomplish more of their own goals under the OSGeo umbrella*". issue: This is what happened in Italy. Back in Fall-Winter 2006/2007 (after the Lausanne FOSS4G) the geographic/free open source community had a very substantial online discussion on what to do in order to promote geographic/free open "stuff" in Italy. The result was that we decided first to create a not-for-profit legal entity in Italy (this can be done with <600 USD at current exchange rates and operated witha lot less than 5 KUSD/year, as we have from our books). We (as an association in Italy) were then acknowledged as Italian OSGEO Chapter. We (as the majority of people who decided to take an active part in this process) thought that this was the best way to accomplish more goals at the local level (as an "association for social promotion" can formally talk to a local administrative body, or to a national authority for information society) At the same time, we retain the possibility of relating to the global community within the "OSGEO umbrella". Localization (ooops...locali-S-ation...I am writing from Europe) is key to awareness raising. This applies to all aspects of our action. The only apparent drawback I see in first creating a local organisation which then becomes a chapter of a global one, is that doing things "locally" implies a "real life" cost that plain web interaction does not. You need people to disconnect from a PC and visit government offices, accounting consultants etc, and this maybe implies being a little less visible on the global level for some time. But, after a long 2007 to make this happen, I feel that we are heading out of this startup phase in Italy, and I trust that on the 2008 FOSS4G (at the latest) we will be able to explaing what happened, and how we expect being able to better help the global community through this approach. I encourage ANY new chapter to consider this prior to opening a wiki section on the OSGEO site as a local chapter (whiche does not mean I don't like the OSGEO wiki). I encourage ANY pre-existing local chapter that does not yet have a local "formal entity" to re-consider their approach (and maybe decide that they are fine without a local legal entity ;)...but as a result of a full evaluation of existing options). 2) *Language:* thiis may be only a relative issue. We are now in an era where English has been dominating the scene in terms of development of operating systems and programming languages, but we have gvSIG classes being created in Spanish. In other technical areas of expertise which have been around for a long time (e.g. medicine), most of the terms come from Latin and Greek, while terms from new surgery techniques come from other newer languages...in time our medical practice is improving independently of posing a "which is the best language" issue. so I guess we will see a similar evolution. Getting back on the software side of things, surely "English language inertia" can be a bottleneck to community developmentlet's see what can be done by leveraging existing initiatives (osgeo-edu etc. etc. etc) with a "localisation twist" I'll be glad to see more thoughts on both topics from other international voices. Andrea, aka pibinko http://www.pibinko.org 2008/6/12 Paulo Marcondes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/6/12 Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > take. Why couldn't a group in Brazil or Germany form a local chapter of > the > > OSGeo that is incorporated in their nation to pursue not only a common > OSGeo > > As for Brazil, incorporating was ruled out early on, IIRC, mainly > because of the high cost of running any sort of NGO or company here. > At least 5k USD/year, just to exist. > > -- > Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX > -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc > ___ > 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] The Germans and The Brazilians...
andrea giacomelli wrote: I encourage ANY new chapter to consider this prior to opening a wiki section on the OSGEO site as a local chapter (whiche does not mean I don't like the OSGEO wiki). I encourage ANY pre-existing local chapter that does not yet have a local "formal entity" to re-consider their approach (and maybe decide that they are fine without a local legal entity ;)...but as a result of a full evaluation of existing options). Andrea, Could you please elaborate a bit more on the reasons why a "formal entity" seems so important to you for a local chapter? Your comment is interesting because we are in the process of starting a Quebec Chapter of OSGeo *without* a formal entity, exactly to avoid the overhead of a legal entity and since our initial goals are networking and sharing of expertise (in collaboration with the French Chapter with whom we share the French language). We figured that since we have no current plans to deal with money we are better build the networking tools first (wiki, discuss lists, regular meetings) and then get to the legal/formal stuff only later on if/when we really need it. This is the model of the Ottawa chapter which has been operating without a formal entity since ~2004. It was the first OSGeo chapter and the group existed as MapServer Users Group and Grass Users Group before OSGeo was even created. Since your experience seems to differ from ours and we are just about to create a new chapter without a formal entity I'd really like to learn more about your own experience and the reasons why we should consider the formal entity options. Thanks Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Language
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The reality is that the software world is dominated by the >> western world and the English language. (How many programming languages do >> you know of that are written in Russian?) :] > > I hope a Russian answers, because given the split between the Soviet > and western worlds in the early years of computing, I am sure there > must be several. Of course, our lack of knowledge is merely proof > positive of our insularity. Just consult one of your preferred search engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-English-based_programming_languages -> Glagol – A Russian-based programming language similar to Oberon and Pascal -> Rapira – A Russian-based interpreted procedural programming language with strong dynamic type system ... But maybe offtopic for this list... Markus ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Driving licenses for geofoss?
Hi Andrea, thanks for the info. We could try to do the same thing of QGIS and GVsig with uDig-JGrass. Could you send me some material to check what we should have and what are the main needs? We also have some free data released from the public administration of Merano last november those we put on the OpenStreetMap... there are DTM, ortophoto, shapefiles and dxf... Ciao Silvia > > If there are other folks on these list who may be interested to develop the > test on other packages, and would like to take advantage of our experience > with QGIS and setting up a free data set for use in Italy, we will be glad > to "share alike" our efforts... > > Regards, > > Andrea, aka pibinko > http://www.pibinko.org > > 2008/6/11 Paolo Cavallini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Jeroen Ticheler ha scritto: >> >> > I'm curious to hear some opinions from people on the European Computer >> > Driving License (see http://www.ecdl.org ) Foundation. >> > >> > There's a specific option to obtain certificates on (proprietary) GIS >> > software. Since we're talking about a Foundation, FOSS4G providers >> > should be able to offer similar certification. >> > http://www.ecdl.org/products/index.jsp?b=0-102&pID=771&nID=772 >> >> GFOSS.it is already involved in the process: we have prepared the test, >> and soon we'll be ready to implement the whole process. >> pc >> -- >> Paolo Cavallini, see: * http://www.faunalia.it/pc * >> ___ >> 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
An Australian perspective, where we speak English almost exclusively: I'd like to think we can address most of these issues by focusing on: 1. Be true to OSGeo's core values, possibly update them where they are unclear. * We promote Open Source Software and Open content. * Engaging the international community is in our long term best interest as we will increase our developer base. 2. We are a Meritocracy: * Most of our funding comes from local organisations funding local developers. OSGeo has minimal influence how this money is spent. * If a local issue is important (like language) then it will be funded locally. 3. OSGeo is a not-for-profit: * If OSGeo starts chasing profits it will eventually lead to conflict of interest between the bottom line and OSGeo's principles. That said, OSGeo does have expenses and requires funding to continue, however we should endevour to put principles ahead of profit. In Australia and New Zealand, I haven't noticed the friction mentioned in other parts of the world, probably because we are not effected by export restrictions, and we speak English. I recently had issue with OSGeo being asked to put its name behind a conference about open source software, which used proprietary presentation material - but these concerns were ethical and not geographic. Australian is a local chapter which is in the process of incorporating into a legal entity so that it can be used to handle money. Our focus is on marketing OSGeo and the Open Source Geospatial stack. Arnulf Christl wrote: All, every now and then governance issues pop up in lists and on IRC. I will try to summarizes some of them for those of .us who do not follow all OSGeo communication that closely. One critique is that the board of directors does not make decisions easily and quickly which could be seen as a weakness (chickens) [1]. Another critique is that some members of the board block decisions due to philosophical[2] musings. It was suggested that in some cases it is better that the board take decisions even if they might be objected to by parts of the community. Some have argued that part of the sentiment underlying this kind of talk is a North American centric view of the world, namely this included Jo, Markus, Me, Myself and I. I for one get this feedback on a regular basis from parts of the German speaking community. This sentiment has lead to a lot of discussion within the GaV which is the existing German FOSSGIS community, a legal entity incorporated in 2001-01-18. It was felt that OSGeo (Main?, Int'l?) was too US (North American) centric in its mindset. What do other "local" communities think about this? And how do you voice your opinion? Do you have a legal representative within OSGeo to voice your concerns? How do you go about this? I believe that some of the sentiment and philosophical musings that has lead to the Board not being very decisive in some matters is actually a good sign and shows that the board is conscious of the mission impossible she has taken on trying to represent the highly diverse community of all Geo-FOSS folks in the world. From my perspective OSGeo (intl, Main, HQ, ?) should try to be the meta level organizational umbrella and should thus also refrain from meddling with local issues as best it can. This includes by far and large all commercial activities. I can only foresee many unresolvable problems coming upon us if we do start to go commercial. Whenever we say We, we must be conscious of who We are. The danger for people "steering" OSGeo is to confuse Me with We. Its so easy: you only have to flip the "W" in We to make it turn into a "Me". Ugh. This looks very much like a Warnock[3]. My hope is that someone will share some more insights from another perspective. I'd like the board and the NA cabal and all see that there *is* a rest of the world - and that incidentally the others are always in the majority. Anyway. Another triviality we need to address are export restrictions. Due to formal reasons OSGeo was required to incorporate[4]. It could have been Togo - home of one of the most active and diverse spatial communities[5]. Or it could have been Switzerland, one of the most neutral (soccer looser) nations or it could have been Canada, home of our president, ED and some of the best software developers OSGeo can muster and also home of our beloved elephant in a porcelain shop[0]. But instead, she incarnated in the US, the most backwater place imaginable wrt Open Source. Looking at the goals and mission of OSGeo it would have been more logic to incorporate on Earth but funny enough that is not a legal entity suitable for incorporation. It is an undisputed fact that Web communities are spatially unrestricted [6] If .us does not understand this - who on Earth ever could? From this world wide perspective US Export Restrictions are ridiculous and nothing but. But from a legal standp oint - and OSGeo (I
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Germans and The Brazilians...
Daniel - 1) I can provide my personal opinion (still, built on top of almost 18 months of making an effort within GFOSS.it, and a much longer period in thinking on how to help raise awareness on GIS and open source). All of this reasoning spawns from the mission that we see for a local chapter (http://www.osgeo.org/content/chapters/guidelines.html) and in the drive to make this happen in Italy. 2) In Italy, even if you don't want to "deal with money", if you don't have a legal entity, anything you do in the "real world" [1] in order to follow local chapter guidelines is strongly limited. Without a registered association you may promote activities as a single individual, or as a "comitato spontaneo" (meaning a self-made committee). A list of people on a web page in Italy does not qualify as an Association or a "chapter". However a "real" association will have a much greater "role recognition" than the work of a group of individuals. 3) SAMPLE CASES REAL CASE 1: An association with a formal presence can obtain "sponsorship" by a local administration authority, and have free (as in no cost) access to facilities with broadband access to host any eventa group of individuals as a "spontaneous committee" may or may not be eligible for the same...a group of individuals referenced on a wiki page will not.. ;) REAL CASE 2: An individual or a "spontaneous committee" may be invited for a seminar by a University Department, but an Association can create a formal partnership with the same entity, and trigger much more structured initiatives...etc. etc. etc. Again: it all depends, possibly, on the peculiarities of a given local setting, and the combination of the local chapter guidelines as suggested by OSGEO with the vision of the people acting locally. 4) PLEASE NOTE: In my previous post I did not say that all local chapters in any region of the globe would require a legal entity to be effective in their mission - I was possibly stressing the fact that, while creating the "virtual" presence of a Chapter is easy, this needs to come from an assessment of the environmet we, as "locals" operate. 5) The other non-secondary aspect of having the "real world" entity is that people are required to meet to make certain things happen in the operation of the association itself. In terms of consolidation of a community, people sitting around a table (possibly with a bottle of their favorite drink - be it spirits or water), will help. 6) As a result of the approach we took in Italy, following our first year of existence, we started from Feb 08 a calendar of activities that is leading to a substantial awareness raising process ( http://wiki.gfoss.it/index.php/To_Do#Programmazione_eventi for a partial list...and please bear with us if we don't translate all material targeted to local activities in English ;)) 7) If you live in a country where things are simpler, we'll be glad to make contact with you... we could set up some "FOSS advocate exchange program"...you come for one month in Italy, and try our byzantine heritage environment (but with lots of good food) ...and we try some simpler settings to raise awareness and to create networking opportunities etc etc. I hope this mail helped in expanding the picture. I apologize if I may have taken a kind of philosophical/post-cyberpunk angle...and talk to you on our European AM time... ;) Andrea, aka pibinko http://www.pibinko.org [1] or let's say "off the web"...given the amount of time we spend on the web we can't really tell which is our main "reference" environment ;) ) 2008/6/12 Daniel Morissette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > andrea giacomelli wrote: > >> >> I encourage ANY new chapter to consider this prior to opening a wiki >> section on the OSGEO site as a local chapter (whiche does not mean I don't >> like the OSGEO wiki). >> >> I encourage ANY pre-existing local chapter that does not yet have a local >> "formal entity" to re-consider their approach (and maybe decide that they >> are fine without a local legal entity ;)...but as a result of a full >> evaluation of existing options). >> >> > Andrea, > > Could you please elaborate a bit more on the reasons why a "formal entity" > seems so important to you for a local chapter? > > Your comment is interesting because we are in the process of starting a > Quebec Chapter of OSGeo *without* a formal entity, exactly to avoid the > overhead of a legal entity and since our initial goals are networking and > sharing of expertise (in collaboration with the French Chapter with whom we > share the French language). We figured that since we have no current plans > to deal with money we are better build the networking tools first (wiki, > discuss lists, regular meetings) and then get to the legal/formal stuff only > later on if/when we really need it. > > This is the model of the Ottawa chapter which has been operating without a > formal entity since ~2004. It was the first OSGeo chapter and the group > existed as MapServer User
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 12-Jun-08, at 9:20 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: - Putting our policy online (presumably copied from Apache shamelessly) in a findable location, to conform to the legal norms of our host nation. I'll have to re-read Arnulf's note to understand more precisely what you are referring to here... we don't have the tax exemption in place yet, if that's what you mean. - Having a plan to take better advantage of our host nation status. We pay a good deal in terms of administrative overhead to be a fully tax-exempt charity in the USofA, what fund raising plans have we linked to that status? Is that status gaining us anything at all, at this point? The only connection I have *ever* heard was Michael Tiemann saying he'd only contribute if he could get a US tax write-off. Getting to the US tax-exempt status has taken more time than expected. We hired some help to handle the application process for us, but that hasn't sped up the proces too much. My latest update shows we are close to completing the application and getting into the approval queue after I answer a few more questions. That said, it will help any US donor on taxes - especially our US-based sponsors. It will also make it possible for us to apply for certain US-based grants/funding that require that status. Landon wrote: I've never seen any type of fundraising plan. Do we have one? If we want to take advantage of our tax-exempt status do we have a list of American companies that might be possible contributors and might also be interested in a tax write-off? Do we need to assemble a team to handle fund-raising efforts? Formal fundraising has been a challenge, though just defining what that means is a challenge. I started compiling my thoughts on the topic but didn't get them distributed. In so far as the conference, presentations, booths and one-on-one discussions go - we are fairly active in what ultimately ends up helping fundraising. There was a fundraising committee but it was tough to get moving. So its responsibilities were rolled back to the board. To help this I wanted to get a plan together but have been busy with other things. A team that is bigger than just the board and I, could be very helpful. Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Driving licenses for geofoss?
ciao Silvia - please see below. 2008/6/12 Silvia Franceschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Andrea, > thanks for the info. > > We could try to do the same thing of QGIS and GVsig with uDig-JGrass. If I may, I would suggest that we first wait to close out the test with one application. Getting through the process has exposed some interesting steps that took long in our experience. The same steps may be streamlined once we/somebody decided to replicate them on other packages. Last but not least, I also want to hear feedback from the first person who will get his/her "license" out of our test. Again, this will help in tuning things on other initiatives. While this *may* apparently delay the diffusion of the other packages, this will also help whoever will commit to this to do it better on a second round. by the way: we can (and should) consider expanding the visibility of different packages in our "local setting" also through other initiatives. > > Could you send me some material to check what we should have and what are > the main needs? the GFOSS.it wiki has some information (look for ECDL). this page is not up to date, but does give a backgroun. the "real world" process is actually stewarded by AICA/Labsita, so you would need to ask them for the latest updates (but we can provide you the contact information if needed). beyond this, we cannot give more detail information on the test: there is also a non-disclosure agreement which is to be signed by people who are involved in setting up the tests, and again, this goes through AICA/Labsita. > We also have some free data released from the public administration of > Merano last november those we put on the OpenStreetMap... there are DTM, > ortophoto, shapefiles and dxf... I remember that. The data would be fine for any use under ECDL and other purposes (e.g. we used it for our "awareness raising" video ;) ). ...proposing local datasets for ECDL tests to be conducted in different areas of Italy -in our case- will be yet another opportunity to interact between the developers (who need to fix bugs/add functions) to make applications compliant to the standard syllabus, and for users to apply data which they know better. I hope this helps - Andrea, aka pibinko http://www.pibinko.org ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
IMO: Paul, Some Local Chapters are going through this process currently, e.g. OSGeo-AustNZ. We will need to incorporate as a non profit within Australia with its overheads of audits, annual fees etc. One potential upside is that we may get some protection by way of Directors Insurance for people making decisions on behalf of OSGeo (or the local chapter). During the recent FOSS4G-2009 work, several of us were left high and dry with no protection from the parent body. This situation is not acceptable. Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/06/2008 03:28:31 AM: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Dave Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there practical > > matters (e.g. wording in the foundation's charter > > or letters of incorporation) that preclude OSGeo from > > being incorporated in multiple jurisdictions? > > Yes, it's work to be an entity. We're having enough trouble with the > work involved in being an entity just one jurisdiction, adding more > just adds more rules to follow and forms to submit. If the work > involved and rules of the USA are too overwhelming, I could see > changing to a different jurisdiction, but there would have to be a > good reason to ditch all the effort invested thus far. > > P. > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Chickens, Boards and Export Restrictions
On 2008/06/12 5:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO: Paul, Some Local Chapters are going through this process currently, e.g. OSGeo-AustNZ. We will need to incorporate as a non profit within Australia with its overheads of audits, annual fees etc. One potential upside is that we may get some protection by way of Directors Insurance for people making decisions on behalf of OSGeo (or the local chapter). During the recent FOSS4G-2009 work, several of us were left high and dry with no protection from the parent body. This situation is not acceptable. I understand what Bruce is referring to, but, depending on the relevant legislation, should an issue ever arise where 'the legal system' was potentially going to be involved, the lack of a "Directors and Officers" or "Volunteers" insurance policy may not leave people "high and dry". Sometimes, legislation will protect people who provide services to an organization on a volunteer basis. The premise is that if such lay people are acting on a best effort basis to 'do the right thing', they are protected, even if it turns out they 'did the wrong thing'. -- Dave Patton CIS Canadian Information Systems Victoria, B.C. Degree Confluence Project: Canadian Coordinator Technical Coordinator http://www.confluence.org/ OSGeo FOSS4G2007 conference: Workshop Committee Chair Conference Committee member http://www.foss4g2007.org/ Personal website: Maps, GPS, etc. http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] The New Board to be and Global representation
Hi All, some new blood is added to the OSGeo charter members, and now we are poised to get new board members too. If one can remember, there was a discussion on the geographical representation of the board members after the last election. It is pertinent to have a global representation of OSGeo board members. I hope the election to Board members will yield results that will represent a global interest of OSGeo. In spite of the fact that internet is nearly erasing the political boundaries, still in countries like India, Geospatial technologies are yet to make a mark in semi-urban and rural societies. OSGeo Coding verses OSGeo software usage(ratio): Unlike the developed world where the ratio is evenly matched or slightly tilted towards users, in India it is very highly tilted towards OSGeo software usage. So the priorities are different in promoting OSGeo. Cheers Ravi Kumar ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
