Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
The video under question is here: https://vimeo.com/106232256 We’ve got about 50% of the videos up, but the remainder will have to wait a week since we’ve hit our weekly upload limits on vimeo. Darrell On Sep 15, 2014, at 13:37, Kristin Bott bo...@reed.edu wrote: Kathleen Danielson's talk can be found here: http://kathleen.getcourse.com/embed.html?course=74708aa8-d180-4482-bdff-da740e27eec9#/ Recorded sessions aren't up yet, but I know Darrell is working on it. -k.bott On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Crap - I guess this means I better set up another incubation committee meeting :) There was a great talk at foss4g about burnout (anyone got a link?). I always try and respect the volunteers I am working with ... Rant: Please remember that YOU are a volunteer you are working with, respect your time appropriately. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Jody, your response is perfect. I do get upset too often (or actually, I take quite a lot, but eventually am set off). I apologize for this, I will try to be better. I am slowly improving. But I could be better. To get myself back on track, I decided a few minutes ago (mentioned on the Board list) by doing some little things for OSGeo right now. And you'll be happy to hear that one of them is Incubation-related: give a push with the pycsw team for the next steps (code review etc), as I am their mentor. Thanks again for being the voice of reason Jody. Let's all do as Jody says, and I am sure these tricky points will work themselves out. -jeff On 2014-09-15 4:57 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: Well I don't like you get upset Jeff, you are correct that patches speak louder than emails. If I could put a plug in for the incubation committee - we would really love some more volunteers. We have a couple projects waiting to get in and all we need is a mentor to be a friendly voice/email contact. The stuff we do at OSGeo can be very intimidating (starting a steering committee - gasp!) or require sensitivity (trade mark conflict). Having a mentor to email or Skype can be of great assistance. -- Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Why is there this sudden need to point out things like this? This is the part that makes my heart drop. (and the underlying meaning of the subject of this email) Instead of pointing out issues, maybe those making these noises can spend that time on the marketing committee, or tackling on the membership issue. I personally have no problem with LocationTech, in fact I agree they play a very important role for businesses. I do have a problem however with pointing out problems with OSGeo and our baby, FOSS4G; instead of pointing out problems, I feel those same people could be diving into helping OSGeo grow and pick up the ball themselves. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:56 PM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote: Why is this not true? I think you are misinterpreting here Jeff. Membership in OSGeo is a single person. Yes this person can belong to a company or run their own company, but membership is still personal. Bart Sent from my iPhone On 15 sep. 2014, at 19:45, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com__ wrote: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ 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 -- Kristin Bott
[OSGeo-Discuss] Reflections on resignations, mergers the soul of OSGeo
The last few weeks there have been several threads running on the mailing lists, rather than trying to reply in line to each of them I want to draw out a theme that seems apparent to me as a relative newcomer to the OSGeo community. We are facing the challenges of success or what could be described as growing pains. We have recently had debates over the role of the president, the election of charter members and board members, references to factions forming and off list conversations, a discussion about the need for change in the way we organise FOSS4G’s (and believe me as a recent past chair of a LOC, we need to make this easier) and their purpose (fund raising vs community building) has somehow morphed into a row over our relationship with LocationTech and in the last couple of days a committed member of the board has resigned. These are all indicative of a conversation that we need to have about the role and future of OSGeo. Why do we need an OSGeo (or a LocationTech)? There are loads of reasons (but not for a short mail) and we as the OSGeo community need to set out the options for our organisation, articulate a clear vision for the next few years and find a way to broaden discussion to a wider group than the small number of individuals who have been active on the lists in the last couple of months, there were over 800 people at each of the last 2 FOSS4G’s (massive respect to the 2014 team) how do we engage with them to understand their needs and aspirations. If we can agree on a clear vision for OSGeo including whether we want to continue being a solely volunteer run organisation or whether there is a need for some other model to deliver on our aspirations then we can work out how we can cooperate with LocationTech or if there is benefit from some closer relationship. Open Source engenders passion, we care about this stuff massively, and sometimes that may lead those of us with strong opinions to become critical of each other. It’s time to take a deep breath. __ Steven ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise. Andrew On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote: On 9/16/2014 10:48 AM, Richard Greenwood wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Very pertinent questions form Rich. I hope we will receive some lucid answers. Best Venka Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit to go ahead as a leader. This would not work in this way in LocationTech. Both ways have reasons to exist and are good. Right? Cheers. Arnulf Am 2014-09-15 10:45, schrieb Jeff McKenna: On 2014-09-15 1:22 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote: the members in OSGeo are individuals and the members in Eclipse/LocationTech are businesses Daniel this statement is not true, regarding OSGeo. OSGeo members are made up of all walks of life, and many are running private businesses all around the world. I have visited their organizations/offices myself in my FOSS4G travels throughout the years. However I cannot change how you feel. This part is unfortunate, these strong statements made publicly, which I feel are made to divide our community. Let me reinforce: our OSGeo community and our FOSS4G events (of all sizes) are geared for everyone and anyone, with no sole focus on one type of community. And as the President of OSGeo, I am happy to represent all of the members, of any kind :) -jeff ___ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't been withdrawn nor really pushed despite fearful attempts to portray it as otherwise. Andrew On 15/09/14 20:28, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote: On 9/16/2014 10:48 AM, Richard Greenwood wrote: I don't get it, and my question is moot at this point in time, but why do we need a new foundation? Why couldn't OSGeo have provided what LocationTech purports to provide? Was there any discussion, or awareness, in the OSGeo board prior to the formation of LocationTech? Very pertinent questions form Rich. I hope we will receive some lucid answers. Best Venka Rich On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com wrote: Arnulf, I definitely agree that both foundations fill a role and need to exist. The point I am trying to make is that we have the power to change OSGeo, if we feel some needs are not being met well. I used too strong of words again, I am sorry. -jeff On 2014-09-15 2:59 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, I believe that Daniel is actually right in what he says - given that I understand the point he is trying to make. There are differences between OSGeo and LocationTech and trying to talk them away will not get us anywhere. And its not bad or goo either way, we just operate differently. The point is that in OSGeo you cannot move anything at all as a business, not directly. In LocationTech you become a corporate member, pay money and in return have influence over certain things and get support. Directly geared towards your specific needs. OSGeo does none of those things. As an individual (with or without business) you can become the committee chair and an OSGeo officer with absolutely no preconditions, no money needed, no organizational backing and no other hierarchy. Just because othes think you are doing a cool job and have accumulated enough merit
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Jeff, Everyone I'd like to try using a metaphor in case it might help. Imagine FOSS4G as an open source library. Rather than create a new library that does pretty much the same thing, many feel that a single vibrant library in this case is the best thing for the ecosystem. Hopefully this is seen as pretty reasonable so far. There are different models for open source. Some models are open to all try hard to keep a level playing field. In this models people can comfortably contribute knowing that their efforts benefit everyone. In this model, it's open to everyone including parties that might be competitors elsewhere. Other models are pretty unfair, such as when a company requires copyright assignment to the company, only allows employees to influence the roadmap, and uses a strong license like the GPL. Under such circumstances, that company has a strong advantage over anyone else. For one example, they are the only ones that can offer a non-GPL license version of the software. For the past 10 years, different groups were welcome to contribute to our FOSS4G library. After their contributions were sufficient, they got to participate in influencing the roadmap for the library. Some groups only had the capacity to contribute a little, some a lot. I believe this is what we're talking about. LocationTech would like to contribute in a fair way and participate in the roadmap too, just as others have done. Everyone wins if this can happen. I'm very happy to talk about governance and how we can do things fairly, openly, transparently, and make sure everyone is comfortable. If what you're telling me is that FOSS4G is not open source, but instead proprietary then I've made a mistake and it wasn't the FOSS4G I thought it was all these years. Does this make sense? Andrew On 16/09/14 08:38, Jeff McKenna wrote: Hello everyone, To clarify publicly, I have no problem with LocationTech, and in fact I feel that its foundation plays an important role in our ecosystem. The issue actually boils down to OSGeo's only event, FOSS4G. We, as OSGeo, present this event each year and it is a large part of our annual revenue. It is very important to the OSGeo foundation, as it is our flagship event. It was made clear to me that LocationTech is not interested in having their own global event, and that they are in fact interested in our event, FOSS4G. So maybe to remove this stress, or fear, I would prefer to pull back on the throttle, start with an MoU between the two foundations, and then begin to share booths at events, or donate booths at each other's events. In other words, take baby steps, and build the relationship slowly, as we do with every other foundation. I apologize for not bringing this issue to the community sooner. In fact this all really came to a head in Portland, and you can see that now we must deal with this all together. I always try to represent the entire OSGeo community well, if you feel that I have made mistakes please share this here with everyone. I am here to represent you. The last few days have been very hard on me. -jeff OSGeo President On 2014-09-16 11:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote: Dear All, Discussions started informally back in 2011. By 2012, there were more formal discussions ongoing including a face to face meeting with Michael Gerlek who was appointed by the OSGeo board to represent OSGeo. I wanted to say publicly that Michael's work was extremely professional and I was very impressed. I believe it's fair to say reaction was similar back then. Many people saw many positives in working closely together. Some asked if the two organizations could be one. Like today, there were some who were very fearful. Those that supported working closely together felt it was best not to push too hard. Discussions have continued since then over the past 3-4 years focusing on specific collaboration on a case by case basis. During that time, LocationTech has sponsored and its projects participated in 2 FOSS4Gs. It was asked by an OSGeo board member to organize FOSS4G NA 2015. It has provided discrete feedback to OSGeo projects regarding intellectual property related issues in OSGeo projects so they could be fixed. OSGeo projects were well represented on the 2013 LocationTech tour and again in 2014. I hope these things are seen as a significant positive force. I would like to draw attention to the fact that LocationTech's growth has not taken anything away from OSGeo. In fairness, building upon what Steven Feldman eloquently put, the problems OSGeo faces are problems today were faced before LocationTech existed, and since. It's fair to say there is tension to collaborate more closely since the strengths of OSGeo LocationTech complement each other despite some overlap. LocationTech the Eclipse Foundation are *offering* to help solve some of the problems we've been talking about in OSGeo for many years. It's been 4 years and the offer hasn't
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 OSGeo Code Sprint in Philadelphia - let us know when
Thank-you all for your input on the Doodle poll regarding the proposed 2015 OSGeo code sprint http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015. Based on the input from the Doodle poll, we have decided on Mar 2 - 6. As details develop, I'll post on the ToSprint list and the wiki page http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015. It was great talking to many of you at last week's FOSS4G in Portland. We'll be aiming to build on past successful code sprints and create an event that will support some great feature and project improvements. Best, Robert -- Robert Cheetham Azavea | 340 N 12th St, Ste 402, Philadelphia, PA cheet...@azavea.com | T 215.701.7713 | F 215.925.2663 Web azavea.com http://www.azavea.com/ | Blog azavea.com/blogs | Twitter @ http://goog_858212415rcheetham http://twitter.com/rcheetham and @azavea http://twitter.com/azavea *Azavea is a B Corporation http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps - we apply geospatial technology for civic and social impact* *while advancing the state-of-the-art through research. Join us http://jobs.azavea.com/.* On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Robert Cheetham cheet...@azavea.com wrote: OSGeo Developers, I sent this out to everyone to the TOSprint list, but we haven't had a lot of responses, so I'm re-sending to Discuss. At this year's code sprint in Vienna, Azavea was asked to consider reviving our proposal to host a code sprint in Philadelphia. We've done some research on venues and have a couple of possibilities. I've revised our 2014 proposal and now have a 2015 proposal page up at *http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015 http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015* While Azavea could potentially host a smaller sprint (up to 40) in our office, we'd like to anticipate the kind of crowd that attended this year's code sprint in Vienna (70 - 80) I would also like to propose that we consider expanding the scope by inviting both OSGeo and the Eclipse Foundation's LocationTech http://www.locationtech.org/ projects (JTS, uDig, GeoTrellis, GeoMesa, Geogig, GeoJini, etc.). There are several developers that work on both OSGeo and LocationTech projects, and we think this would be an opportunity for people to work together. That said, this would also likely require a larger venue and there are likely other considerations before pursuing this idea. I'm interested in your feedback. I'd like to potentially book a block of hotel rooms as well as settle on some dates. If you are interested in attending the code sprint, please register your preferences with the Doodle poll at: http://doodle.com/6krhmqpimxx4pdni Thanks, Robert -- Robert Cheetham Azavea | 340 N 12th St, Ste 402, Philadelphia, PA cheet...@azavea.com | T 215.701.7713 | F 215.925.2663 Web azavea.com http://www.azavea.com/ | Blog azavea.com/blogs | Twitter @ http://goog_858212415rcheetham http://twitter.com/rcheetham and @azavea http://twitter.com/azavea *Azavea is a B Corporation http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps - we apply geospatial technology to create better communities * *while advancing the state-of-the-art through research. Join us in creating a better world.* ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 OSGeo Code Sprint in Philadelphia - let us know when
Thanks Robert, I am at the OGC meeting in calgary and was just encouraging the CITE team to attend. As OSGeo is providing several reference implementations it would be good to have a bit more interaction with the OGC in our comfort zone (i.e. a code sprint). Jody Jody Garnett On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Robert Cheetham cheet...@azavea.com wrote: OSGeo Developers, I sent this out to everyone to the TOSprint list, but we haven't had a lot of responses, so I'm re-sending to Discuss. At this year's code sprint in Vienna, Azavea was asked to consider reviving our proposal to host a code sprint in Philadelphia. We've done some research on venues and have a couple of possibilities. I've revised our 2014 proposal and now have a 2015 proposal page up at *http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015 http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Code_Sprint_2015* While Azavea could potentially host a smaller sprint (up to 40) in our office, we'd like to anticipate the kind of crowd that attended this year's code sprint in Vienna (70 - 80) I would also like to propose that we consider expanding the scope by inviting both OSGeo and the Eclipse Foundation's LocationTech http://www.locationtech.org/ projects (JTS, uDig, GeoTrellis, GeoMesa, Geogig, GeoJini, etc.). There are several developers that work on both OSGeo and LocationTech projects, and we think this would be an opportunity for people to work together. That said, this would also likely require a larger venue and there are likely other considerations before pursuing this idea. I'm interested in your feedback. I'd like to potentially book a block of hotel rooms as well as settle on some dates. If you are interested in attending the code sprint, please register your preferences with the Doodle poll at: http://doodle.com/6krhmqpimxx4pdni Thanks, Robert -- Robert Cheetham Azavea | 340 N 12th St, Ste 402, Philadelphia, PA cheet...@azavea.com | T 215.701.7713 | F 215.925.2663 Web azavea.com http://www.azavea.com/ | Blog azavea.com/blogs | Twitter @ http://goog_858212415rcheetham http://twitter.com/rcheetham and @azavea http://twitter.com/azavea *Azavea is a B Corporation http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps - we apply geospatial technology to create better communities * *while advancing the state-of-the-art through research. Join us in creating a better world.* ___ 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] Reflections on resignations, mergers the soul of OSGeo
yes we can :-) D. On 16-09-14 11:08, Jo Cook wrote: Hi Steven, Board and Discuss List, Well said. I'm going to add another point to this, which is that to my mind OSGeo is becoming a victim of it's own success- in that the projects it nurtured and helped to grow have indeed grown, to the poinst where they are far better known than the organisation. I've worried about this for a while- I talk to people about open source geospatial and everyone knows what I'm talking about, but I mention OSGeo and no one has a clue. So great that we (collectively as a community and not just OSGeo) have made the projects a sucess but what's the future for the organisation itself? So.. basically this is a +1 for a deep breath and a thought about where we want OSGeo to go, but... we keep having these discussions- year on year and to my mind we're not making a lot of progress. Can we make this year the one where we do come up with a new plan? Jo On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Feldman shfeld...@gmail.com mailto:shfeld...@gmail.com wrote: The last few weeks there have been several threads running on the mailing lists, rather than trying to reply in line to each of them I want to draw out a theme that seems apparent to me as a relative newcomer to the OSGeo community. We are facing the challenges of success or what could be described as growing pains. We have recently had debates over the role of the president, the election of charter members and board members, references to factions forming and off list conversations, a discussion about the need for change in the way we organise FOSS4G’s (and believe me as a recent past chair of a LOC, we need to make this easier) and their purpose (fund raising vs community building) has somehow morphed into a row over our relationship with LocationTech and in the last couple of days a committed member of the board has resigned. These are all indicative of a conversation that we need to have about the role and future of OSGeo. Why do we need an OSGeo (or a LocationTech)? There are loads of reasons (but not for a short mail) and we as the OSGeo community need to set out the options for our organisation, articulate a clear vision for the next few years and find a way to broaden discussion to a wider group than the small number of individuals who have been active on the lists in the last couple of months, there were over 800 people at each of the last 2 FOSS4G’s (massive respect to the 2014 team) how do we engage with them to understand their needs and aspirations. If we can agree on a clear vision for OSGeo including whether we want to continue being a solely volunteer run organisation or whether there is a need for some other model to deliver on our aspirations then we can work out how we can cooperate with LocationTech or if there is benefit from some closer relationship. Open Source engenders passion, we care about this stuff massively, and sometimes that may lead those of us with strong opinions to become critical of each other. It’s time to take a deep breath. __ Steven ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Jo Cook* Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 7RL, UK t:+44 7930 524 155 iShare - Data integration and publishing platform http://www.isharemaps.com/ * Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no. 864201149. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Yours sincerely, ir. Dirk Frigne CEO Geosparc n.v. Brugsesteenweg 587 B-9030 Ghent Tel: +32 9 236 60 18 GSM: +32 495 508 799 http://www.geomajas.org http://www.geosparc.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
