Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Anyone Know What's Happened to All the NAIP Servers?

[Michael Smith]

Bill,

Looks like the services are moving to new locations. See the list of
services offered here

http://cumulus.cr.usgs.gov/services.php

Mike


-- 
Michael Smith
US Army Corps of Engineers
Remote Sensing/GIS Center
Hanover, NH 




On 7/27/10 2:49 PM, Bill Thoen bth...@gisnet.com wrote:

 Up until just a few days ago, USDA NAIP (US Dept of Agriculture's  National
 Agriculture Inventory Program) 1-meter aerial imagery was available free from
 several government servers but suddenly they all seem to have gone dark. Both
 the USGS ArcGIS and USDA.gov servers and a couple of AFPO sources seemed to
 have dried up simultaneously. Doe anyone know why? Is it going to be restored
 or scrapped? Is It is available elsewhere?
 
 I was using the USGS server at
 http://isse.cr.usgs.gov/arcgis/services/Combined/USGS_EDC_Ortho_NAIP/MapServer
 /WMSServer? but it's now broadcasting  a runtime error instead of images. I
 hope it's not gone for good because it is a great source for free aerial
 imagery. So if anyone knows what's happened or what's unfolding here I'd like
 to find out. With the GeoCommunicator site announcing its shut-down soon I'm
 getting concerned that something bigger might be happening to US govt. spatial
 data resources.
 
 - Bill Thoen
 
 
 
 ___
 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

[Michael Smith]

I believe that narrative B best fits what I know about LocationTech and
their interactions with OSGeo.

Note that this is my personal opinion.


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org


From:  Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Rob Emanuele
<rdemanu...@gmail.com>
Date:  Monday, November 16, 2015 at 7:59 PM
To:  Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net>
Cc:  OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject:  [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship
Resent-From:  Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

> I think there's two narratives that are at conflict in this entire thread. I'm
> going to try to try to spell them out as I see them:
> 
> A. LocationTech is a newer-than-OSGeo organization that is trying to make a
> name for itself, capture market share, promote it's brand, in general act in a
> way that makes itself grow. The intention behind LocationTech's actions in
> offering services as a professional conference organizer is mostly for it's
> own gain; LocationTech wants to smoothly slide into becoming a part of OSGeo's
> annual conference for the profit and promotion of itself, to the potential
> loss of OSGeo. For that reason, it is best for the OSGeo community to protect
> itself from LocationTech, keep measured distance between the organizations,
> not allow it to become part of the FOSS4G international event, or at least to
> be suspicious of it's stated good intentions in offering itself to be PCO. The
> real story is that LocationTech's intentions are primarily about the profits
> and higher visibility it will gain from being part of FOSS4G, and the help it
> is offering plays a secondary role.
> 
> B. LocationTech is an organization that was created out of intentions to help
> parts of the community that were perhaps not best served by OSGeo at the time.
> It has it's own governance and ways of doing things, which include being
> backed by small and large companies looking to contribute financial support to
> the open source community, which allows for things like paid staff. The model
> is different than OSGeo, the structure is different than OSGeo, and the aims
> are similar but have differences. One differences is that it's parent
> organization is the Eclipse Foundation, who have professional conference
> organizers on staff and a lot of experience running successful conferences.
> Seeing this is a valuable thing that the open source geospatial community can
> take advantage of, LocationTech offers it's services as a professional
> conference organizer to the FOSS4G NA regional conferences, and now has
> offered it's services to the international conference in 2017. While certainly
> not eschewing the increase in visibility in the community that being part of
> the conferences would afford LocationTech, that plays a secondary role to the
> earnest desire to help the open source geospatial community.
> 
> Have I captured these narratives correctly or incorrectly? They are based on
> impressions and implicit opinions that I've tried to understand from these
> conversations. I think perhaps explicitly stating them would be useful, so if
> I have failed to do so correctly please correct me.
> 
> I obviously have a preference for believing that narrative B best fits the
> reality of the situation. Self promotion surely must play some role in
> LocationTech's actions, but is it naive to think that the intentions of
> LocationTech are for the community first and itself second? Perhaps. I don't
> think so though. The alternative is certainly not how I operate when I
> participate in LocationTech.
> 
> I prefer the narrative of openness and trust vs the narrative of mistrust and
> suspicion that sounds like bad politics. I hope that this community that I
> choose to participate in is not such a political mess that breeds that sort of
> selfish market share power plays, and instead it is a community of people and
> organizations that take actions based on how they can contribute to an overall
> good.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net> wrote:
>> On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two organizations
>>> > today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being "developer
>>> > focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I think that is more a reflection
>>> > of where the projects involved are in their incubation process that any
>>> > strategic difference.
>> 
>> Jody,
>> 
>> I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter),
>> this whole thread has not clarif

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: OSGeo thoughts on discussion/collaboration platform hosting

[Michael Smith]

Jeff,

Yes, I could see something like loomio being very helpful. I don't know if
we would want both loomio and something slack-like but we might. It would
be fantastic for board meetings.

I would definitely be in support of something like this or slack or
something being hosted by OSGeo.

Mike



Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org








-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jeff McKenna
<jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo thoughts on
discussion/collaboration platform hosting
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>Hi Mike,
>
>I agree this is a good discussion.  By the way, Tim Sutton just pointed
>me to a decision making platform that QGIS is now using, I think it
>would be great to have an OSGeo instance (see below):
>
>
>
>On 2015-10-17 6:53 PM, Tim Sutton wrote:
> >
> > did you consider using something like loomio - we found it very
> > frustrating dealing with decisions via email +1 / -1 etc system as it
>is
> > very hard to know when the decision is made, hard to back reference
> > decisions and people tend to start voting on things willy nilly without
> > having a well defined motion in place. We recently switched to using
> > loomio.org <BlockedBlockedhttp://loomio.orgBlocked> which is a FOSS
>platform for shared
> > decision making. It separates the discussion from the vote(s) but puts
> > them side by side so you can see the context. It also lets you set a
> > deadline for making votes. Its really nice and natural to use. Maybe it
> > would be nice to have an OSGEO instance that all projects could use -
>we
> > just opted to use their hosted version under the philosophy that the
> > less stuff we have to manage ourselves the betterŠ. Here is our QGIS
> > project on loomio:
> >
> > BlockedBlockedhttps://www.loomio.org/g/EKV14L8A/qgisBlocked
>
>
>
>
>On 2015-10-18 9:16 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
>> Along the lines of code hosting, do we want to think about some kind of
>> OSGeo hosted Slack-like service for the community / projects, eg
>> MatterMost, RocketChat, etc?
>>
>>
>> I wanted to start this as a separate topic although a lot of these
>> alternatives are based on git or gitlab so its a very related
>>discussion.
>>
>> What would be useful to OSGeo projects?
>>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo guidelines for code hosting ?

[Michael Smith]

I very much like the idea of paying SAC administrators for all the great
work they do. And setting up an OSGeo git infrastructure (git+trac,
gitlab, or ???) is right in line with our mission statement of our
foundation. 

I'm enjoying where this discussion is going. I don't think we have settled
on a consensus yet but the conversion is very enlightening.

Mike


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org





-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Sandro
Santilli <s...@keybit.net>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 6:18 AM
To: Andreas Hocevar <andreas.hoce...@gmail.com>
Cc: OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo guidelines for code hosting ?
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:07:52AM +0200, Andreas Hocevar wrote:
>
>> please keep an alternative in mind: pay for an OSGeo Github account for
>> projects that want to use Git. Will burn some money, but won't burn out
>> volunteers who have to keep OSGeo's own infrastructure up and running.
>>See
>> BlockedBlockedhttps://github.com/locationtechBlocked as an example.
>
>Please keep another alternative in mind: pay OSGeo system administrators.
>
>Will burn some money, but won't burn out volunteers who have to keep
>OSGeo's own infrastructure up and running.
>
>Even if I understand that the cost for OSGeo sysadmins might be higher
>than the cost for a GitHub account, I can also see that the money
>spent on SAC might result in indirect benefit for free software tools
>(I'm sure SAC people do file tickets for the tools they use) while
>those spent on GitHub could only result in benefit for the proprietary
>software used to run that service.
>
>--strk;
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

[OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo thoughts on discussion/collaboration platform hosting

[Michael Smith]

Along the lines of code hosting, do we want to think about some kind of
OSGeo hosted Slack-like service for the community / projects, eg
MatterMost, RocketChat, etc?


I wanted to start this as a separate topic although a lot of these
alternatives are based on git or gitlab so its a very related discussion.

What would be useful to OSGeo projects?


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org





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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: OSGeo thoughts on discussion/collaboration platform hosting

[Michael Smith]

One problem that I have with IRC is being firewalled due to the ports (at
work or vpn).

I also find the mobile clients for the Slack-like alternatives to be much
better than any IRC mobile client I've found. And just a generally higher
level of functionality while still allowing IRC clients (via some IRC
gateway).

Mike



Michael Smith

US Army Corps
Remote Sensing GIS/Center
michael.sm...@usace.army.mil








-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Sandro
Santilli <s...@keybit.net>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 8:35 AM
To: Michael Smith <michael.smith.e...@gmail.com>
Cc: OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo thoughts on
discussion/collaboration platform hosting
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:16:10AM -0400, Michael Smith wrote:
>> Along the lines of code hosting, do we want to think about some kind of
>> OSGeo hosted Slack-like service for the community / projects, eg
>> MatterMost, RocketChat, etc?
>> 
>> 
>> I wanted to start this as a separate topic although a lot of these
>> alternatives are based on git or gitlab so its a very related
>>discussion.
>> 
>> What would be useful to OSGeo projects?
>
>It takes a poll, I guess.
>Personally, IRC serves me well (but we could add an irc server link to
>the freenode network from osgeo machines :)
>
>BTW: this wiki page may be helpful, and surely can be enhanced:
>Blockedhttp://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:SaaSS_replacementsBlocked
>
>--strk;
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>Blockedhttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [EXTERNAL] My name is now Andrea

[Michael Smith]

Welcome Andrea,

You are very welcome here.

Mike

Michael Smith
US Army Corps
Remote Sensing GIS/Center
michael.sm...@usace.army.mil


From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Andrea Ross
<andrea.r...@eclipse.org>
Organization: Eclipse Foundation
Date: Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [OSGeo-Discuss] My name is now Andrea
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

> Dear Everyone,
> 
> Please pardon me for those who already know this news.
> 
> I participate quite a bit and have supported OSGeo initiatives since the early
> days (FWIW, I am a charter member since 2008), and it seems appropriate to
> share this here as well.
> 
> If you please, it is my wish you call me Andrea
> <BlockedBlockedhttps://42aross.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/my-name-is-now-andrea/
> Blocked>  from now on. Thank you.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Andrea
> 


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Funding code Sprints

[Michael Smith]

All,

I don't think there is a reason to have code sprints coordinate their times
to spread them out over the year. They should run when they need to run. We
don't have a cash flow issue that would require this.

And for the Paris Code Sprint, although a request was made, it does not
appear at this time that it will be needed with the carryover funding and
with the sponsorships.

I firmly agree that Code Sprints are one of the more important things that
the foundation does and if there are worthy candidates for funding, then I,
for one, would like to see our budget expand to cover these. What we have
now is just an expectation based on past support, but if new ones come along
that meet our guidelines, I don't see a reason not to support them no matter
the time period or if they exceed our current budget.

Mike


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org

From:  Board <board-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Venkatesh Raghavan
<ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
Date:  Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM
To:  OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>, OSGeo Board
<bo...@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject:  Re: [Board] Funding code Sprints

> 
>  
> Dear All, 
>  
>  Considering OSGeo budget for 2016, I think, it could be
>  possible to support 3 or 4 Code Sprints at similar
>  sponsorship levels for each sprint as in the past.
>  
>  I would like to propose to have code spread across three or four
>  periods across the year e.g Jan-March, April-June, July-Sept, Oct-Dec
>  and have RFP's for code sprints just like we have for our annual
>  conference. 
>  
>  OSGeo Code Sprint in Paris starting from today (22 Feb., 2016), fits very
> well
>  for the  first quarter of 2016. I see a great lineup of projects
>  and participants for the Paris Code Sprint [1].
>  
>  Code sprints are an integral part of FOSS4G Conferences which is our
>  largest gathering of users and developers. It will be appropriate that
>  OSGeo Foundation supports Code Sprints at FOSS4G conferences as
>  an official event for the July-September period.
>  
>  Best
>  
>  Venka 
>  
>  [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Paris_Code_Sprint_2016
>  
>  
>  On 2016/02/20 18:07, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>  
>  
>>  
>> Dear All,
>> this is to acknowledge that there is a topic on discussion within the board
>> directors on assigning funds to sprint code requests.
>> 
>> Up to now a request-voting-fund approach has been followed without any
>> specific plan.
>> Since the board f2f meeting (thank you community for supporting that as i
>> believe it was an enormous opportunity for OSGeo to speed up advances and
>> was so fruitful) a budget has been draft and resources has been allocated.
>> 
>> With this mail I would personally like to ask a few questions the different
>> communities:
>> 
>> - who is intended to present a fund request for sprint code in 2016. This
>> will give an idea of the number of expected requests.
>> 
>> - do you have preferences on criteria for assign resources and eventually
>> what is your choice motivation?
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Maxi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>   
>>  
>> ___
>> Board mailing list
>> Board@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>  
>  
>  
> ___ Board mailing list
> bo...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Collaboration is the way forward: Note the LocationTech badge is not showing correctly

[Michael Smith]

Venka,

This is something we discussed quite a bit at both the Boston F2F and at
the LocationTech meeting that I was invited to attend. It was agreed that
we all wanted to work together on the MoU but to also work closer together
on the process so it reflects interests and concerns on both sides. Norman
Barker will be attending some OSGeo board meetings to continue the
discussions and I will be attending some LocationTech meetings as well. We
need to keep discussing this both at the meetings and on the list to
continue forward with what is already a very good working relationship.

Mike


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org










-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Venkatesh
Raghavan <ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>
Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 at 2:41 AM
To: Marc Vloemans <marcvloema...@gmail.com>, Helmut Kudrnovsky
<hel...@web.de>, OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Collaboration is the way
forward: Note the LocationTech badge is not showing correctly
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>Hi Marc,
>
>Many thanks to LocationTech for supporting
>OSGeo events and code sprints.
>
>As discussed with you at FOSS4G-Europe last month,
>we could consider going beyond the "informal" partnership
>between LocationTech and OSGeo Foundation and having
>a MoU. I think this would help to answer some of the questions
>that Helmut has raised and avoid any misunderstandings
>in the future.
>
>I had sent you some suggestions on drafting an MoU that you can
>go through and perhaps, find time to discuss f2f with OSGeo board
>members attending FOSS4G-Boston.
>
>Best
>
>Venka
>
>On 2017/08/18 6:23, Marc Vloemans wrote:
>> Dear Helmut,
>>
>> I am also a charter member. And much more in our ever-growing and
>>evolving community.
>>
>> LocationTech is a partner of OSGeo, we work on various joint projects,
>>LocationTech is sponsor of OSGeo code sprints, we work together for many
>>years on FOSS4G North Amerika. We do valuable complementary work
>>regarding community and market development.
>>
>> All this has been achieved over the years incrementally and by the
>>efforts, care and vision of many directly involved. An achievement, that
>>by raising a discussion as you propose
>>
>> Your confusion thus confuses me (besides Chair of the Marketing
>>Committee, former Board member of OSGeoNL, member of the LOC FOSS4G
>>2016, Chair of FOSS4G North Amerika and  Director Ecosystem
>>Development Eclipse Foundation with special focus on its Industry
>>Working Group LocationTech.
>>
>> Your comments are actually turning back the clock.
>>
>> If you may remember, in the recent past some very unfortunately
>>misunderstandings have created a we/them atmosphere. The present FOSS4G
>>in Boston proves we are as an inclusive community moving forward.
>>Towards unimaginable opportunities.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marc Vloemans
>>
>>
>>> Op 17 aug. 2017 om 15:19 heeft Helmut Kudrnovsky <hel...@web.de> het
>>>volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> (Taken from 
>>>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-August/0354
>>>53.html)Blocked
>>>
>>> "Note the LocationTech badge is not not showing correctly"
>>>
>>> now I am, as an OSGeo charter member, really really confused about
>>>this.
>>>
>>> What I'm really missing here is an open discussion and decision making
>>>how we, as an organisation OSGeo, going forward to promote projects
>>>from other organisations.
>>>
>>> What is the added value for OSGeo to promote locationtech projects?
>>>Will locationtech also promote OSGeo projects? Why not promote projects
>>>from any other org? Who will decide which project or other org will be
>>>promoted?
>>>
>>> Too many open questions without any sound background for me as an
>>>OSGeo charter member.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Helmut
>>> ___
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked
>
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Nomination of Rob Emanuele as OSGeo Charter Member

[Michael Smith]

Wow, didn't realize that Rob was not already a charter member. Big +1 from
me

-- 
Michael Smith

Remote Sensing/GIS Center
US Army Corps of Engineers



On 8/30/17,  11:33 AM, "Discuss on behalf of Vasile Craciunescu"
<discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org on behalf of vas...@geo-spatial.org>
wrote:

>Forwarding Rob Emanuele nomination by Doug Newcomb. The 2017 member
>nominations list will be updated ASAP [1].
>
>Best regards,
>Vasile & Jeff
>2017 OSGeo Elections CROs
>
>[1] 
>BlockedBlockedhttps://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2017Block
>ed
>
>
>
> Forwarded Message 
>Subject:   Nomination of Rob Emanuele as OSGeo Charter Member
>Date:  Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:16:53 -0400
>From:  Doug Newcomb <gistin...@gmail.com>
>To:c...@osgeo.org
>
>
>
>Name: Rob Emanuele
>
>Based on my positive experience working with Rob to organize the 2016
>FOSS4GNA Conference and for his continuing work in open source
>geospatial software I would like to nominate Rob Emanuele  to be an
>OSGeo Charter member.
>
>
>Doug Newcomb
>OSGeo Charter member
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination for Eddie Pickle

[Michael Smith]

Indeed, very shocking. A big +1 for Eddie

Michael Smith

US Army Corps
Remote Sensing GIS/Center
michael.sm...@usace.army.mil





-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Marc Vloemans
<marcvloema...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 2:44 AM
To: Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org>
Cc: OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>, OSGeo Chief Returning
Officer <c...@osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination for
Eddie Pickle
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>+1 for Eddie Pickle
>(Shocking that he was not a charter member already.,)
>
>Kind regards,
>Marc Vloemans
>
>
>> Op 9 sep. 2017 om 08:36 heeft Vasile Craciunescu
>><vas...@geo-spatial.org> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> Forwarding Eddie Pickle nomination by Jeffrey Johnson. The 2017 member
>>nominations list was updated [1].
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Vasile & Jeff
>> 2017 OSGeo Elections CROs
>> 
>> [1] 
>>BlockedBlockedhttps://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2017Bloc
>>ked
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Forwarded Message 
>> Subject: Charter Member Nomination for Eddie Pickle
>> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 19:19:55 -0700
>> From: Jeffrey Johnson <ortel...@gmail.com>
>> To: c...@osgeo.org <c...@osgeo.org>
>> CC: Eddie Pickle <eddie.pic...@gmail.com>
>> 
>> Hi CRO,
>> 
>> I would like to nominate Eddie Pickle as a Charter Member of OSGeo.
>> 
>> Eddie currently manages Open Source programs at Digital Globe and was
>> the founding CEO of Boundless (Formerly OpenGeo). Eddie has been
>> working in the Geospatial industry for more than 30 years. He has
>> helped to organize FOSS4G-NA and other conferences such as FedGeoDay
>> which promotes Open Source Geospatial within the US Federal Government
>> as well as regularly participating in the sponsorship of FOSS4G.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jeff Johnson
>> 
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination: Stephen Mather

[Michael Smith]

A very big +1. I assumed Stephen was already a charter member

Michael Smith

US Army Corps
Remote Sensing GIS/Center
michael.sm...@usace.army.mil





-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jeff McKenna
<jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>
Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:57 AM
To: osgeo <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Cc: "c...@osgeo.org" <c...@osgeo.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination:
Stephen Mather
Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.sm...@usace.army.mil>

>Forwarding Stephen Mather nomination by Kristin Bott. The 2017 member
>nominations list was updated [1].
>
>Best regards,
>Vasile & Jeff
>2017 OSGeo Elections CROs
>
>[1] 
>BlockedBlockedhttps://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2017Block
>ed
>
>
> Forwarded Message 
>
>
>Nominee: Stephen Mather - USA
>
>Stephen has likely been most recently visible within the OSGeo community
>as the founder and an ongoing contributor to OpenDroneMap -- for which
>he received supportive grant funding in 2016; on which he has given
>numerous workshops, presentations, and trainings since its development;
>and through which he has partnered with a number of people and agencies
>to use geospatial technologies for humanitarian efforts and other
>applications in education, governmental work, and more.
>
>Through mentoring within and beyond his professional role, Stephen
>encourages the development of geospatial skills in a variety of folk,
>and has recently served as a both mentor and a teacher in cooperative
>programs in Musanze, Rwanda in addition to partnering with students at
>the State University Zanzibar and the University of Rwanda on geospatial
>projects.
>
>Stephen is very active in outreach efforts; the last three years have
>included workshops and presentations all over the globe on open source
>geospatial software and systems (with a notable concentration on drone
>systems/remote sensing applications) -- events include FOSS4G
>(2017,2015,2014), State of the Map Africa (2017), FOSS4G Africa (2017),
>State of the Map US (2016).
>
>Technically, Stephen brings a wide range of expertise in across GIS
>packages/protocols/libraries, remote sensing, and variety of programming
>languages/libraries and is one of the co-authors of the PostGIS Cookbook.
>
>I believe that with a combination of strong technical skills and a
>dedication to outreach/education in diverse communities, Stephen has
>brought a great deal to the OSGeo community for years, and will continue
>to do so.
>
>-Kristin Bott
>
>
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination: Ben Tuttle

[Michael Smith]

+1 for Ben

Mike


Michael Smith

US Army Corps
Remote Sensing GIS/Center
michael.sm...@usace.army.mil




-Original Message-
From: Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jeff McKenna
<jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 2:05 PM
To: osgeo <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>, "c...@osgeo.org" <c...@osgeo.org>
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Charter Member Nomination: Ben Tuttle

>Forwarding Ben Tuttle nomination by Jeffrey Johnson. The 2017 member
>nominations list was updated [1].
>
>Best regards,
>Vasile & Jeff
>2017 OSGeo Elections CROs
>
>[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2017
>
>
> Forwarded Message 
>
>I would like to nominate Ben Tuttle as a Charter Member of OSGeo.
>
>BenTuttle is a R Technologist at the National Geospatial
>Intelligence Agency leading efforts to deliver Open Source Geospatial
>tools as core infrastructure and services for NGA and its customers
>across the US Federal Government. Ben is focused on development and
>delivery of web and mobile geospatial applications to enhance data
>delivery, analysis, and decision-making. He has authored and
>co-authored papers in journals including PE, Geography Compass,
>GeoJournal, Environmental Management, and Remote Sensing of
>Environment. He is currently leading a team of developers to deliver
>new capabilities for first responders, search and rescue teams,
>security personnel, and military users while revolutionizing the
>underlying infrastructure. The team is building on cloud based
>environment with a full DevOps pipeline that includes automated
>security scanning to shorten delivery timelines and fully embrace a
>secure CI/CD process. Ben has attended and participated in numerous
>FOSS4G and his agency is now among the key sponsors of FOSS4G.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jeff Johnson
>
>
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Charter Member nomination for Guido Stein

[Michael Smith]

I would like to nominate Guido Stein for OSGeo Charter membership. 
As most people should know, Guido was co-chair of the Boston LOC for 2017. And, 
as was expected, he did an amazing job. The conference was a complete success 
and Guido's touches were everywhere, with the detail and effort that he puts 
into things. He is currently working efforts to establish a US local chapter of 
OSGeo. He is a valuable member of the community and he should be recognized as 
a charter member.


Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer 


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Charter Member nomination for Micah Wengren

[Michael Smith]

+1 from me

-- 
Michael Smith

Remote Sensing/GIS Center
US Army Corps of Engineers



On 8/25/17,  3:37 PM, "Discuss on behalf of Tom Kralidis"
<discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org on behalf of tomkrali...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi all: I would like to nominate Micah Wengren [1] for OSGeo Charter
>Membership.  Micah is with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>Administration and has been a proponent of open source at NOAA (GeoNode,
>GeoServer) since 2007. He has been a core committer to the GeoNode project
>since 2014.
>
>More recently, he has been active in the open data community, deploying,
>developing, and supporting open source software for data discovery within
>NOAA and in supporting other US Federal agencies through implementation of
>the Federal GeoCloud interagency pilot project from 2012 to 2015.
>Currently
>he contributes to the open source software ecosystem of the US Integrated
>Ocean Observing System (IOOS) [2] to publish ocean observations and
>forecast
>products for US coastal waters.
>
>Micah would be an asset to OSGeo charter membership given his background
>and
>interest in FOSS4G.
>
>..Tom
>
>[1] BlockedBlockedhttps://github.com/mwengrenBlocked
>[2] BlockedBlockedhttps://github.com/ioosBlocked
>___
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>BlockedBlockedhttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discussBlocked


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

[Michael Smith]

Jachym,

It should be "Invitation to participate in the OSGeo Board of Directors
elections 2017"

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org


From:  Discuss <discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jachym Cepicky
<jachym.cepi...@gmail.com>
Date:  Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 3:39 AM
To:  <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us>, Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org>
Cc:  OSGeo Discussions <discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
Subject:  Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board elections time

> Vasile, what is the subject of the mail I should recieve?
> 
> THanks
> 
> J
> 
> st 18. 10. 2017 v 19:15 odesílatel Eli Adam <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us> napsal:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
>> <vas...@geo-spatial.org> wrote:
>>> > Dear all,
>>> >
>>> > Based on the feedback received from two of our members (thank you Dimitris
>>> > and Gert-Jan), I did a small change in the voting system. The change is on
>>> > the number of votes than one can cast. The initial system was maximum 5,
>>> > minimum 5, which does not make sense if you want to abstain on more than 5
>>> > nominations (the rule was inherit from the survey template used last
>>> year).
>>> > Also, according to our process rules  "You can cast up to 5 votes, for 5
>>> > different people." [1]. Now, before making this change, 35 people already
>> 
>> Probably leave it until next year, but [1] is in error; it does not
>> need to be for *different* people.  The bylaws
>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html [2]
>> provide:
>> 
>> Section 8.9. Voting. Each member (except emeritus members) shall be
>> entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting
>> of the members, except in the case of election of directors or as may
>> otherwise be provided in the General Corporation Law of the State of
>> Delaware. If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority
>> of the members represented at the meeting and entitled to vote on the
>> subject matter shall be the act of the members, unless the vote of a
>> greater number is required by the General Corporation Law of the State
>> of Delaware or by the Certificate of Incorporation or by these Bylaws.
>> 
>> In connection with the election of Directors, each member (except
>> emeritus members) shall be entitled to one vote for each vacancy on
>> the Board of Directors to be filled. Members of the Board of Directors
>> shall be elected by the affirmative vote of a plurality of the votes
>> of the members present in person or proxy, including through remote
>> communication, at the meeting and entitled to vote on the election of
>> the Board of Directors. Each member entitled to vote in an election of
>> Directors may cumulate his or her votes by distributing among one or
>> more candidates as many votes as are equal to the number of Director
>> vacancies to be filled in the election.
>> 
>> Andy also raised some good ideas.  Perhaps we need to review this further.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards, Eli
>> 
>> 
>>> > voted. The votes are anonymized but I can go through Limesurvey setting to
>>> > check if is possible to reset someone votes. Please let me know on
>>> > c...@osgeo.org if you already voted and you were unhappy with the fact 
>>> > that
>>> > the system forced you to cast 5 votes.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Vasile
>>> > CRO 2017
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2017
>> 
>> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/18/17 11:57 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dear charter members,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's time to vote for our new members of the board of directors. Like in
>>>> >> the previous years, an electronic voting system was setup. In minutes
>>>> from
>>>> >> now, emails with personal voting links will be sent to all our charter
>>>> >> members. If you don't receive your voting link in the next couple of
>>>> hours
>>>> >> please let me know at c...@osgeo.org. Before doing that please also 
>>>> >> check
>>>> >> your "Spam" folder. Sending hundreds of messages at once is not easy and
it
>>>> >> can be interpreted as spam by some of the f

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Michael Smith]

Frankly, as a current board member, from what I’ve seen, everything was 
properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co CRO. It 
was all above board and transparent. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:
> 
> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I have 
> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and hopefully 
> attending the next board meeting. 
> 
> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot thank the 
> cro enough for keeping up.
> 
> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and an 
> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during 
> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2 the 
> participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent board 
> meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I understand 
> the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections. 
> 
> It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of our 
> organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had not 
> been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but that 
> was it.
> 
> This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to encourage. 
> Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the 
> Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being done 
> by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of an 
> activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why bother". I 
> think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate 
> yesterday.
> 
> Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to 
> deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal 
> attack, or dismissed as campaigning.
> 
> 
> --
> Jody Garnett
> 
>> On 18 October 2017 at 10:23, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jorge Sanz  wrote:
>> > HI Eli,
>> >
>> > If I recall correctly, we answered you that Jeff immediately resigned from
>> > his position as CRO and he has not been involved at all in any Board
>> > elections CRO activity so everything is correctly handled except (and we
>> > apologized for that) the lack of a Trac ticket for the alias change.
>> 
>> Thanks Jorge.  I know those are the events that happened, however, I
>> never saw the Board deliberate and consider whether that is acceptable
>> or not.  In my opinion, it is not, however I'm not on the Board, nor
>> is one Director's opinion a position of the Board.  In the absence of
>> any Board action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> I was left to conclude "that this issue is of no concern to the
>> Board."
>> 
>> Has the Board deliberated or considered this?  Did they take a position?
>> 
>> The reason to have a process and follow it even when you maybe don't
>> "need" it, is so that you also follow the process when you *do* need
>> it.
>> 
>> Best regards, Eli
>> 
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18 October 2017 at 18:07, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Venka, all,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Eli Adam  wrote:
>> >> > Hi Venka,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Venkatesh Raghavan
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Eli,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First of all, thanks to Jorge for volunteering to be co-CRO
>> >> >> and fixing the CRO alias promptly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, thanks Jorge.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regarding your other comment reproduced below;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Board did not appear to review this topic at
>> >> >> their last meeting,
>> >> >> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2017-10-05, so perhaps it is
>> >> >> of no concern to the Board.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The question of review this topic at the 2017-10-05 board meeting did
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> arise
>> >> >> as the nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-08.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for fixing my mistake, I misunderstood the dates and thought
>> >> > that nomination for our ex-co-CRO was filed on 2017-10-01.  Sorry to
>> >> > suggest that it was of no concern to the Board when it is actually
>> >> > unknown.
>> >>
>> >> It appears that voting has now started and I don't see any Board
>> >> threads on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination,
>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2017-October/thread.html
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to assure you that I share your concern about the proper
>> >> >> process.
>> >> >
>> >> > Great, I hope that the Board follows the proper process.  I'll stop
>> >> > making noise and allow the proper process to work.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Should I now conclude that this issue is of 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

[Michael Smith]

What it says is that "The CRO is not eligible for election to the board
while serving as CRO". And that was followed. It doesn't say anything
about being nominated. Resigning from the position, allows Jeff to accept
the nomination. I'm not speaking for the board, just for myself. But in my
opinion, proper procedure was followed.

Mike

Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org




-Original Message-
From: Eli Adam <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us>
Reply-To: <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us>
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM
To: Michael Smith <michael.smith.e...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>, OSGeo Discussions
<discuss@lists.osgeo.org>, CRO <c...@osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: Board nomination: Jeff McKenna

>On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Michael Smith
><michael.smith.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frankly, as a current board member, from what I¹ve seen, everything was
>> properly followed. As soon as he was nominated, Jeff stepped down as co
>>CRO.
>> It was all above board and transparent.
>>
>
>So then perhaps I'm correct in concluding, in the absence of any Board
>action on the legitimacy of the CRO accepting a nomination, I am left
>to conclude that this issue is of no concern to the Board.
>
>In my opinion, it would be worth the Board deliberating and taking a
>position.  This goes back to my initial comment:
>
>I don't think that you can nominate the CRO, nor can the CRO accept
>your nomination, https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer.
>In some past years the CRO was a sitting Board member with a year
>remaining on their term thus avoiding this situation.
>
>In my evaluation, the person offering the nomination failed in that
>they not only did not follow the process but also nominated the CRO.
>The CRO failed in that they accepted the position of CRO while there
>was a possibility that they would run.  The CRO also failed in that
>they then accepted a nomination.  And really it is the Board's failure
>in my opinion:
>
>It is really the Board's (and CRO's) responsibility to ensure that
>this situation doesn't occur.  The Board should not appoint CROs who
>might accept a nomination and people who might accept a nomination
>should not accept appointment as CRO.  Maybe we should return to the
>tradition of the CRO being a sitting Board member with a year
>remaining on their term. CRO is a difficult job and much credit to
>those who do it.
>
>But these are just my opinions.  But I think that I am now correct in
>concluding, in the absence of any Board action on the legitimacy of
>the CRO accepting a nomination, this issue is of no concern to the
>Board.
>
>Best regards, Eli
>
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:19 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Eli the board did not deliberate, you can see the board email list. I
>>have
>> been glad for individual such as yourself caring, speaking up, and
>>hopefully
>> attending the next board meeting.
>>
>> I think we have all learned a lot this election period, and cannot
>>thank the
>> cro enough for keeping up.
>>
>> I trust the next board meeting will provide an update from the cro and
>>an
>> opportunity for discussion. The board is in a strange situation during
>> elections, handing over control of the process to the CRO, and with 1/2
>>the
>> participants at the end of their term. If you track the most recent
>>board
>> meetings several items have been deferred to the next board, so I
>>understand
>> the board not feeling able to deliberate in the middle of elections.
>>
>> It is also important to trust the CRO to act in good faith on behalf of
>>our
>> organization. I did speak up when I was concerned that member list had
>>not
>> been updated and would interfere in the CRO performing their task - but
>>that
>> was it.
>>
>> This is a hard lesson to learn, when to deliberate and when to
>>encourage.
>> Many of the deliberations about foss4g affordability were left until the
>> Boston F2F meeting, to avoid distracting from the excellent work being
>>done
>> by the BLOC. If if well intentioned, deliberating during the course of
>>an
>> activity can distract contributors and bring out feelings of "why
>>bother". I
>> think this was the bickering referenced during the candidates debate
>> yesterday.
>>
>> Finally as a candidate in this election I could not see a clear way to
>> deliberate the current election that would not be viewed as a personal
&g

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] withdrawal from Board election

[Michael Smith]

Concur with Steven. I think we just go forward with the election. 

Michael Smith
OSGeo Treasurer 

> On Oct 22, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Steven Feldman <shfeld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think there is a basis for cancelling the election and restarting 
> 
> We should continue with the voting. 
> 
> With the volume of mail on this list, there is little chance of any charter 
> member not knowing that Jeff has withdrawn
> 
> Leave Jeff's name on the ballot and allow those who would like to see Jeff 
> back on the board to vote for him. Who knows, maybe he will be elected and 
> then change his mind again and accept his place on the board?
> 
> Steven
> 
> 
>> On 22 Oct 2017, at 15:14, Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Barry,
>> 
>> I fully agree with you that a complete restart is the fairest way to go. 
>> However, people are getting really tired with this subject and some already 
>> unsubscribe from this mailing list. Also, not sure if this should be my call 
>> or the board should formally decide on this. Probably should be me, as four 
>> of the board are standing for reelection. I know that most of you are 
>> irritated by the amount of emails that circulate this days on the mailing 
>> list but I would like to hear more opinions on this subject before taking a 
>> decision.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Vasile
>> CRO 2017
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/22/17 4:33 PM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>>>   My proposal to the Board and the OSGeo charter members is to leave the
>>>   list as it is and make sure that the people that did not vote yet are
>>>   aware of Jeff's request to withdraw from the Board elections.
>>> No, this is completely off. If a candidate withdraws during an election, 
>>> you should declare the current ballot void and start a new one without the 
>>> withdrawn candidate.
>>> Leaving the ballot running, but telling people who have not voted yet that 
>>> one candidate has withdrawn is *unfair* to those who already voted.
>>> I would hope that running a ballot is low-enough cost that this doesn't 
>>> have a cost impact, unlike a paper election!
>>> If Jeff had been elected to the board and then resigned the day after the 
>>> election then I assume there's regulations for having new by-elections for 
>>> vacant seats, but this situation is not the same.
>>> Barry
>>>   I can
>>>   insert the information in the reminder mail that I'm planing to submit
>>>   tonight/Monday morning.
>>>   Best,
>>>   Vasile
>>>   CRO 2017
>>>   [1] http://www.geo-spatial.org/osgeo/bucuresti2017
>>>   <http://www.geo-spatial.org/osgeo/bucuresti2017>
>>>>   On 10/21/17 3:34 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>> Dear CRO,
>>>> 
>>>> Please accept my withdrawal from the Board election.  I am sorry to
>>>> cause all of the problems so clearly explained by so many here
>>>   publicly
>>>> this election.
>>>> 
>>>> I wish to take the time now to thank all of the candidates for
>>>> volunteering their time for the OSGeo community.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours,
>>>> 
>>>> -Jeff McKenna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>   <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>>   ___
>>>   Discuss mailing list
>>>   Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
>>>   https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>   <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -
>> Vasile Crăciunescu
>> geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
>> http://www.geo-spatial.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] Elections 2017 from the CRO point of view

[Michael Smith]

I should be able to make it tomorrow but I will publish my thoughts here. 

1) while we have had something more involved in previous years, the end result 
was the same. I’d really hate to change the process again so quickly although I 
do like the template idea. Maybe via form on the wiki or something. But if 
people really don’t like the new process I’m not that against changing it but 
if we do change it, imho it needs to be done right after the election and not 
close to next years process. 

2) I still feel that nothing bad was followed here. I think recusal from CRO 
after nomination is reasonable as long as it’s before voting or setup etc. 

3) since these are all voluntary positions, I feel that any one should be able 
to withdraw if that’s what they feel is necessary. We don’t know what all went 
into the decision but I believe that anyone nominated would act in a heartfelt 
and considered manner. If Jeff felt the need to withdraw, I think we need to 
respect that, even if during the election. The end result is the same as if he 
withdraws after, except that some people had more info to make a decision.  
This could happen to anyone if their circumstances changes. It’s something I 
think we have to allow for as real life can interfere with our best intentions. 


Finally I agree with the decision to not redo the election. If there was 
something that interferes with integrity of the election, then there would be 
cause but these are just, frankly, almost to be expected issues. We are just 
fortunate that we haven’t been as affected by these in previous years. 


Michael Smith
OSGeo Treasurer 

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Vasile Craciunescu <vas...@geo-spatial.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Board directors and dear members of OSGeo community,
> 
> This year elections [1] will end in less than 7 hours and it is time for me, 
> as CRO, to make a short assessment and to issue a few recommendations.
> 
> As you all know, during the process we had a few situations that caused 
> tension and discontent to an important number of our members. I will go 
> through the most important ones.
> 
> 1. This year membership process [2] was a very lite one. The basic rule for 
> becoming a charter member was to be nominated by one existing member and to 
> be seconded by at least one other existing member. This lite approach was in 
> line with the new OSGeo Vision and Mission Statement which is focused on 
> being inclusive [3]. However, during the nomination period, many of our 
> members considered the new membership process way too inclusive/lite, causing 
> a diminution in the importance of the charter member position. Another 
> subject that produced criticism was related to the fact that some of the 
> nominations were considered short in content and did not offer enough 
> information on the "positive attributes" [4] that a potential member shall 
> have. Finally, one of the charter member responsibilities [5], "Be aware of 
> and protect against a takeover of OSGeo by single group or viewpoint.", was 
> also a subject of dispute. My recommendations for the future board are to: 
> (a) Change the existing membership process with another one more balanced, 
> that assures both inclusiveness and a consistent weight for the charter 
> member position. Of course, this new mechanism should be discussed with the 
> community; (b) Impose a a very light template for the new nominations. This 
> way, all the nominations will be consistent and comparable. (c) Rephrase 
> responsibility no. 3 of the charter members. The meaning should be kept bu 
> the wording should not sound that martial.
> 
> 2. Jeff was nominated for the board of directors while was serving as co-CRO. 
> Even if the nominee steeped down immediately from the co-CRO position, the 
> access to the c...@osgeo.org was immediately cut-off and he never had access 
> to the electronic voting system, criticism over the potential conflict of 
> interest and elections credibility was raised. My recommendation for the 
> board is to make a specific rule that a nomination/candidacy for/from a 
> person that is acting as CRO or has any other role in the election management 
> is not acceptable.
> 
> 3. During the voting period Jeff sent a request to withdraw from the 
> elections due to the negative feedback. This also started a vivid debate. My 
> recommendation for the board is to create a clear rule stating that an 
> accepted nomination cannot be withdraw after the start of the voting period. 
> Of course, elected persons can always resign for various reasons.
> 
> Regarding the current status of the elections. 311 from a total of 390 
> members voted (80%). Due to the final reminder sent today there are chances 
> to improve the voting participation.
> 
> In my previou

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [GRASS-user] Helena Mitasova awarded 2018 Waldo-Tobler GIScience Prize

[Michael Smith]

Congratulations Helena, and well deserved!

Michael Smith
Remote Sensing/GIS Center
US Army Corps of Engineers

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 2:15 AM, María Arias de Reyna <dela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Congratulations!
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Helmut Kudrnovsky <hel...@web.de> wrote:
>> forwarding: 
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/2018-April/078052.html
>> 
>> -
>> https://gi-science.blogspot.com/2018/04/helena-mitasova-awarded-2018-waldo.html
>> 
>> "The Austrian Academy of Sciences through its Commission for GIScience is
>> awarding the GIScience Prize named after Prof Waldo Tobler to a scientist
>> having demonstrated outstanding and sustained contributions to the
>> discipline worthy of inspiring young scientists in Geoinformatics and
>> Geographic Information Science, and having accomplished significant
>> advances in research and education.
>> 
>> The received nominations were reviewed and assessed by an external panel of
>> peers, who unanimously recommended to award the 2018 prize to Prof Helena
>> Mitasova (North Carolina State University)."
>> 
>> 
>> congratulations!
>> 
>> kind regards
>> Helmut
>> 
>> OSGeo charter member
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the 2018 OSGeo Charter Member elections

[Michael Smith]

Cameron,

Do you mean https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2018?

Mike


--
Michael Smith
OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
treasu...@osgeo.org


-Original Message-
From: Discuss  on behalf of Cameron Shorter 

Date: Friday, October 19, 2018 at  4:09 PM
To: OSGeo CRO , OSGeo Discussions 
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the 2018 OSGeo 
Charter Member elections

Vasile, Vicky, Jorge,

I can't seem to find a list of nominations for new charter members which 
descriptions about why they have been nominated. I've used such a list 
in the past to assess whether I'd vote for someone or not.

I suggest publishing on this page 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2018, and if not too late, adding 
to the Limesurvey page.

Cheers, Cameron


On 19/10/18 7:42 pm, OSGeo CRO wrote:
>
> Dear
>
> Cameron,
>
> As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to 
> participate in the 2018 Charter Member elections.
>
> To participate, please click on the link below.
>
> Sincerely,
> Vasile, Vicky & Jorge
>
> CRO 2018
>
> 

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

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


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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Board candidate manifesto - Michael Smith

[Michael Smith]

Wiki editing is down so posting this to Discuss.

 

About Me:

For those of you that don't know me, I'm Michael Smith, a physical scientist at 
the US Army Corps of Engineers. I've been involved with the MapServer community 
since 2001 and OSGeo since its inception. For the last 4 years, I've been 
honored to be a OSGeo Board member and the OSGeo treasurer. It’s been quite a 
learning experience and I greatly thank Daniel Morissette, the previous OSGeo 
treasurer for so much support in handling the transition.

 

My Vision:

In my time on the board and as treasurer, my focus has been on encouraging 
governments (in general) and the US in particular, especially the Department of 
Defense which, personally I know makes extensive use of OSGeo projects, to more 
actively participate is OSGeo and the projects beyond just use and occasional 
commits.

 

What your interests are in terms of the board:

If reelected, I plan to continue as OSGeo Treasurer. Its been a bit of a 
learning experience handling the funds from OSGeo, learning how to do the non 
profit tax filings for the US Government (where OSGeo is incorporated) and 
handling distributions of funds to Code Sprints and Events. Its also been a lot 
of fun to work directly with groups and individuals all over the world with 
OSGeo. Its been a very rewarding experience.

 

It’s really wonderful to see a great group of new candidates to the board. Its 
wonderful to see the diversity and multiple regions of the world represented in 
the candidates.

 

Thank you for the nomination, OSGeo Community!

 

Mike



Michael Smith

OSGeo Foundation Treasurer

treasu...@osgeo.org

 

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board candidate manifesto - Michael Smith

[michael . smith . erdc]

Thanks Vicky!

Michael Smith
OSGeo Treasurer 

> On Nov 25, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Vicky Vergara  wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael:
> Now that wiki is back on line, Michael manifesto has being added to the wiki
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2018_Candidate_Manifestos#Michael_Smith
> Regards
> Vasile, Jorge, Vicky
> OSGeo 2018 CRO
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 6:29 PM Michael Smith  
>> wrote:
>> Wiki editing is down so posting this to Discuss.
>>  
>> About Me:
>> For those of you that don't know me, I'm Michael Smith, a physical scientist 
>> at the US Army Corps of Engineers. I've been involved with the MapServer 
>> community since 2001 and OSGeo since its inception. For the last 4 years, 
>> I've been honored to be a OSGeo Board member and the OSGeo treasurer. It’s 
>> been quite a learning experience and I greatly thank Daniel Morissette, the 
>> previous OSGeo treasurer for so much support in handling the transition.
>>  
>> My Vision:
>> In my time on the board and as treasurer, my focus has been on encouraging 
>> governments (in general) and the US in particular, especially the Department 
>> of Defense which, personally I know makes extensive use of OSGeo projects, 
>> to more actively participate is OSGeo and the projects beyond just use and 
>> occasional commits.
>>  
>> What your interests are in terms of the board:
>> 
>> If reelected, I plan to continue as OSGeo Treasurer. Its been a bit of a 
>> learning experience handling the funds from OSGeo, learning how to do the 
>> non profit tax filings for the US Government (where OSGeo is incorporated) 
>> and handling distributions of funds to Code Sprints and Events. Its also 
>> been a lot of fun to work directly with groups and individuals all over the 
>> world with OSGeo. Its been a very rewarding experience.
>>  
>> It’s really wonderful to see a great group of new candidates to the board. 
>> Its wonderful to see the diversity and multiple regions of the world 
>> represented in the candidates.
>>  
>> Thank you for the nomination, OSGeo Community!
>>  
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> Michael Smith
>> 
>> OSGeo Foundation Treasurer
>> 
>> treasu...@osgeo.org
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> -- 
> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
> Salzmannstraße 44, 
> 81739 München, Germany
> 
> Vicky Vergara
> Operations Research
> 
> eMail: vi...@georepublic.de
> Web: https://georepublic.info
> 
> Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1
> Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9
> 
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
> CEO: Daniel Kastl
> 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] My last letter as President

[michael . smith . erdc]

Maria,

I would also like to express my thanks for your service as OSGeo President, 
which is a demanding position. You lead with grace,  style, compassion and 
wisdom and we are all better for your efforts. 

 
Michael Smith
OSGeo Treasurer


> On Dec 8, 2019, at 9:18 AM, Astrid Emde (OSGeo)  wrote:
> 
> Hello Maria,
> 
> thanks a lot for beeing our president for the last two years. You did a great 
> job and represented our community very well.
> 
> It was a great pleasure to work with you on the board. I liked the 
> discussions, your energy, your inspiring ideas and all the cats.
> 
> I am looking forward to another 2 years in the board and hope we will follow 
> the spirit.
> 
> All the best and see you
> 
> Astrid
> 
> Am 04.12.2019 08:08 schrieb María Arias de Reyna:
>> Dear fellow OSGeoers,
>> I want to congratulate all the recently elected members of the Board,
>> specially the new ones! I hope you enjoy the journey as much as I did
>> and contribute with your unique view to our organization. I want to
>> thank all the people that helped me on this two-year journey and I
>> hope I helped others on this journey too. OSGeo is evolving to be more
>> inclusive, diverse and bigger than ever and I am proud of you all.
>> As some of you may know, some months ago I decided to go back into the
>> barricades and far from public exposure. I think rotating positions
>> inside a voluntary organization is something very healthy to do and
>> gives you a unique perspective. That's why I decided to participate on
>> a proposal for FOSS4G 2021 and not repeat elections again for the
>> Board.
>> I hereby resign as President to let one of the current members of the
>> Board take this position. I have always a strong advocate that this
>> kind of positions should be taken by Board members, so I want to
>> explicitly facilitate the transition. Our current vice-presidents
>> Helena Mitasova and Angelos Tzotsos will fill the space until a new
>> President is appointed.
>> I have to say I'm still a bit sad of the geographic, cultural and
>> ethnic representation on the Board. I am sure we can change this on
>> the following years. Until then, I am confident current members of the
>> Board will do a great job representing you all.
>> See you all in Calgary in 2020!
>> María, your former OSGeo President.
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> ___
> Board mailing list
> bo...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023

[Michael Smith via Discuss]

I would say that its probably best to think about Hybrid, as this is what is 
happening for 2022. Essentially you are both right, there are pluses and 
minuses to each. And we want to support both going forward as there isn’t going 
to be an approach that works for everyone. Future FOSS4Gs will probably all 
part virtual and in-person.

Note this is my personal opinion. 

Mike


-- 

Michael Smith
US Army Corps / Remote Sensing GIS Center
 


On 1/12/22, 10:28 AM, "Discuss on behalf of Iván Sánchez Ortega via Discuss" 
 wrote:

El miércoles, 12 de enero de 2022 15:26:05 (CET) Jonathan Moules via 
Discuss 
escribió:
>  > we really hope that FOSS4G2023 can be safely 
>  > organized in physical format.
> 
> Why?

Because we humans are social animals; and people like me, who are almost 
completely burnt out by not having been outside of their houses for nearly 
two 
years, could really use an in-person event to see their friends and their 
personal heroes.

I'm not gonna attack Jonathan's points (or even reply to them, risking an 
episode of sealioning to erode my patience), but I want to make one of my 
own:

It's good for our collective mental health. We *want* an in person event, 
we 
*hope* for it; which for me is a sign our brains have some demand for it, 
even 
if it's intangible.


-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega  https://ivan.sanchezortega.es


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


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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration

[Michael smith via Discuss]

I thought discourse was here to supplement the Mailing Lists, not replace them. To offer an alternative access means. And to provide something we lost when Nabble shut down.MikeMichael SmithUS Army CorpsOn Dec 29, 2023, at 8:30 AM, SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA via Discuss  wrote:






I am one of those guys that have little idea of what is happening with these changes... And also one that takes notice (and is kind of worry) about the little activity that is taking place in the lists...




Sergio Acosta y Lara
Departamento de Geomática
Dirección Nacional de Topografía
Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas
URUGUAY
(598)29157933 ints. 20329
http://geoportal.mtop.gub.uy/





De: Discuss  en nombre de Cannata Massimiliano via Discuss 
Enviado: viernes, 29 de diciembre de 2023 8:43:03
Para: Bruce Bannerman; discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Asunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
 



Dear all,
My 2cents...


Discourse seems an appealing solution for query and answer but I agree with Bruce that before we move we should have a nice open discussion, since it's not gonna be the magic stick... 
I've seen the platform used at some universities and seeing last post dated one year ago didn't attract people to use it..


I also believe we have a low engagement rate in the latest year and deep open reflections should be done in my opinion to revamp it... Since our community have been highly relevant and has more to say in my opinion..


Il 28 dic 2023 23:53, Bruce Bannerman via Discuss  ha scritto:



Apart from these few emails telling me that a move to something called Discourse is happening, I have not seen any discussion on our lists explaining the pros and cons of such a move. 


I find this lack of community engagement on this issue to be troubling.


This does not seem to be a very open source community way of making such a significant move.


Personally, what we have now has been working nicely for me for close on 20 years.


The lists have been very quiet for quite a while now, but that is a community engagement issue. It is not something that technology will magically fix.


It seems to me that we have a case of the tail wagging the dog.


Kind regards,


Bruce



On 29 Dec 2023, at 05:15, Jody Garnett via Discuss  wrote:






Reading online it appears there is:


1. A mailing list mode so notifications are sent out each time a post is made (this is a user preference)


2. A reply via email mode


So experimentation is needed.


Reference:
- 
https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-is-mailing-list-mode/46008/8
- 
https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-up-reply-by-email-with-pop3-polling/14003







--
Jody Garnett












On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:09 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:


I think we need someone who understand how discourse works to make an informed decision.


If the forum fills up with questions; and the developers are minding the email list - it will not work out so well :) At least as described.





--
Jody Garnett










On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 6:58 AM Vicky Vergara  wrote:







On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:43 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:


Q: So if a mailing list is mirrored to discourse it operates similar to nabble used to? Is searchable etc …



I don't know the details of how discourse works, 
 



But replies done via discourse are not sent to mailing list subscribers - so it is one way communication.

https://meta.discourse.org/t/create-a-read-only-mailing-list-mirror/77990
 

And the thinking here is that discourse is easier for people who want to ask a specific question without subscribing to a mailing list (and getting yet more email).

Yes, so you can have the mirror in one category and another catergory for Q













--
Jody Garnett










On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 9:07 AM Vicky Vergara  wrote:




Hi Jody


We are offering options


Before:
Use mailing list




After:
* Use mailing list and see the archives only on 
https://lists.osgeo.org/

* Use mailing list and see the archives also on discourse
* Use discourse without a mailing list




This are the possibilities regarding migration of mailing list
* Have the mailing list migrated completely to discourse example [1]  (Use discourse without a mailing list, but get previous conversations from mailing list)

* Have a mirror of the mailing in discourse example [2] (Use mailing list and see the archives also on discourse)


* Have a category on discourse and not have a mailing list example [3] was created by Jody (Use discourse without a mailing list)
* Opt to not migrate or mirror the mailing list example [4] (Use mailing list and see the archives only on
https://lists.osgeo.org/)


[1] https://discourse.osgeo.org/c/qgis/qgis-fr-user/5
[2] https://discourse.osgeo.org/c/sac-global-category/sac/13
[3] 
https://discourse.osgeo.org/t/about-the-osgeo-site-feedback-category/1

[4] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2008loc/





Regards