Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo Elections 2015] Nomination for Asger Sigurd Petersen
+1 from here, too. Best regards, Tamas 2015-08-28 18:19 GMT+02:00 Codrina Maria Ilie codr...@geo-spatial.org: +1 I had the opportunity to meet Asger a few years ago and I enjoyed his enthusiasm and openness towards his open source work. Over time, he has been participating to many foss4g events. Even more, I remember that at FOSS4G 2013, his map won 'Best open source integration' and 2. place in 'Best overall cartographic display'. He has been actively involved in organizing the first Danish QGis Dev Conference this year [1]. I think that through his interests, contributions and organizing activities, Asger deserves to be named a Charter Member of OSGeo. All the best, Codrina [1] http://ign.ku.dk/english/outreach-publications/conferences-seminars/international-qgis-user-and-developer-conference/ On 8/24/15 14:12, Vasile Craciunescu wrote: Forwarding Asger Sigurd Petersen nomination by Jeff McKenna. Best regards, Vasile Forwarded Message Subject: Nomination for Asger Sigurd Petersen Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:19:32 -0300 From: Jeff McKenna jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com To: c...@osgeo.org c...@osgeo.org CC: Asger Sigurd Petersen as...@septima.dk It is my pleasure to nominate Asger Sigurd Petersen (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Advocate#Asger_Sigurd_Skovbo_Petersen), from Denmark, as an OSGeo Charter Member. Asger is a long-time FOSS4G vocal advocate and developer in the Danish community. When the Danish national mapping agency (Danish Geodata Agency) released all of their data as Open, Asger and others formed Septima, a company focusing on delivering innovative solutions to Danish citizens through Open software and Open data. Asger is also involved in several OSGeo projects, contributing patches and plugins for QGIS, GDAL, and others. Asger is very well spoken, in several languages, and has been presenting at the global FOSS4G events for many years. I ran into Asger in the hallway of FOSS4G-Como, and it was once of the most interesting talks I had that week, hearing his opinions on Open data and Open software. Please welcome Asger's passion and knowledge into the OSGeo foundation, as a Charter member. -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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future
Frank, The RFC http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo4w/wiki/rfc1_pmc looks pretty good, thanks for putting that together. Once the PSC is formed, I'm keen on writing a second one where we could start thinking about the primary objectives and requirements of the system we should realize, I think we all have quite some ideas, and experiences in creating windows builds (both positive and negative) which makes it possible to find out the right direction to follow. I also think packaging on Windows is a different thing, other platforms may apply for a separate governance regarding to the binary distributions, there might be some common aspects, though. Best regards, Tamas 2013/9/25 Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com Folks, I have initiated an RFC for a project management committee for OSGeo4W. I'd encourage everyone interested in participating to joint the osgeo4w-dev mailing list and to continue detailed discussion there. http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev I think this list (osgeo-discuss) is a great place to discuss linkages between different packaging efforts. Best regards, Frank On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Jo Cook joc...@astuntechnology.com wrote: The newest version of Portable GIS doesn't require quite so many admin privileges, but I've also slimmed it down dramatically so it fits on a smaller USB stick, so it contains a lot less software (no gvsig, no mysql etc). It is used extensively for training courses in the UK, without too many problems, and the new version should be better again as I have a windows 8 VM to test on at last. I'd like to bring Portable GIS in line with OSGeo4W and OSGeo Live- I've spoken to both Alex and Cameron about this in the past- but I have some work to do before that's possible- namely around documenting exactly which files I change, and also the build process. It's all in a local mercurial repository at the moment, but I'd really like to get it online. To be honest, my big concern is that I don't always have time to focus on things outside of my core work (maybe that will change post FOSS4G) and I can't guarantee being able to pitch in at release time, or even respond to issues in a timely manner. That's the main reason why I've kept it as a little pet project- so I'm not letting anyone else down! Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this discussion! I think it makes sense to come up with an over-arching project/committee/whatever that covers both OSGeo4W and OSGeo-Live, and maybe PortableGIS at some point, rather than separate projects. It's always better to share work rather than replicate it. Does anyone have any objections to that idea? Personally, I'd then sketch out the workflows for each, and figure out what make-up of committee would be required to oversee that and go through incubation. Jo On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote: On 09/24/2013 12:50 AM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Angelos Tzotsos gcpp.kal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Daniel, I am in favor of both OSGeoLive and OSGeo4W going through a few weeks incubation process. Best, Angelos My own impression is that if we want to reach out to non-geek GIS users the ideal way would be a system like portable GIS with the great documentation of the live dvd, ie run and test the programs without needing to be admin or having to install different programs. I've researched this problem, talked with Jo (Current author of PortableGIS http://www.archaeogeek.com/portable-gis.html) There is almost no way to make this work without Admin priveleges on a windows machine. Some individual apps can be made to work by extensively modifying how they look for libs but many require things like a jvm to run on top of, or a mix of system an local libs (e.g. Visual C++ is required for many OSGeo4W apps and requires an install, that's actually about the only part that has to be installed vs just in the OSGeo4w folder). This is actually why I settled on helping create OSGeo Live bootable products and virtual machines. Of course this isn't perfect either as figuring out how to boot a disk or usb seems beyond some users, and the virtual machine still hits needing admin to install virtualization software. I also agree there's no reason many of the documentation efforts can't be shared. Thanks, Alex ___ Discuss mailing list 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 * Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 120 Manor Green
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO4W future
2013/9/23 Mateusz Loskot mate...@loskot.net Although I suggested CoApp route as I think it's the right modern way to package FOSS for Windows, I don't think I will be able to get actively involved in this project I'm afraid (I'm no longer able to target Windows with my volunteered contributions that I make after hours). Mateusz, No worries, CoApp seems to be a compelling way that I'm also in favour of. I'll do some tests soon and let us see how the things will go. Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future
2013/9/22 Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it I agree with Tamas: we first have an issue with governance; once this is solved, we can deal with tech issues. Anyone a suggestion to move forward? To me, the first candidates that come to mind are Frank, Tamas, and Juergen: anyone else? Board, could this be a special OSGeo committee? I'd suggest Mateusz an Jeff should also be invited (if they have time). Any other who is involved in packaging Windows stuff, please feel free to check in as well. Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] RE : Re: OSGEO4W future
Gerald, There are so many decisions that should be made regarding to either the suggested directions to follow, or the technical details, which might apply for a PSC indeed. You've meant to prepare something for the developers (something like what I've indended to do with the binaries at http://www.gisinternals.com/sdk/) which is probably different as what the end user would expect. Development SDKs would support to compile all versions especially the latest development version, while the production edition should be based on the latest stable releases. A testing edition would probably be based on the current development or stable branches providing daily built binaries if possible. Switching from one version to another might also require a policy as upgrading a lower level library may definitely break the upper level binaries. Either the projects or the multiple versions of a specific project may require different versions of the same dependencies that should also be pointed out somewhere. We (with Jürgen and Paolo) have also been talking about whether to use a freeware compiler edition (like Visual Studio 2010 Express) which doesn't seem to contain x64 support unless a proper Windows SDK is installed or we make our life less painful to let OSGeo to purchase one license of the full version of MSVC 2010 to be installed on the VM. Furthermore we should also evaluate all projects (to be supported by OSGeo) regarding to their need of the compilers/environments for both x86/x64 which should also be installed on the VM. One other decision should also be made about the suggested scripting environment to be used for automating the compilation, whether to use nmake/batch file/bash whatever and how the compilation process itself will be organized. I'm not sure I can enumerate all possible aspects but we would require quite some negotiation, and to test what works and what not (for each project). We may also require to tweak / modify the external libraries (adding makefiles of fixing issues) which should also be tracked somewhere. Most projects may have scripting interfaces using further dependecies required for the compilation like SWIG/Java/Python/C#. Which Java SDK or SWIG version should be used, which Python version(s) should be supported? Is that the responsibility of the projects to provide their scripts to control the compilation of their binaries at OSGeo4w. Would that be a requirement to add their OSGeo4w build/install controller scripts along with their sources? Some projects may not support MSVC builds do they require a completely different framework (ie. msys/mingw) which can or cannot work along with the MSVC based dependencies or we force the project to author their nmake or cmake based makefiles as a prerequisite to be included in OSGeo4w? We should also make sure whether the licensing model of a project (or dependency) allows or denies the inclusion of that in OSGeo4w. And so on (anyone is welcomed to add further experiences or ideas) Best regards, Tamas 2013/9/21 Fenoy Gerald gerald.fe...@geolabs.fr Alex, thanks a lot for such kind of answer. In fact what I have in mind is more to provide a build suite, I definitely don't know how to name it. Anyway, let say something that make you able to download this or that software and which will make sure that you will get everything required to build this specific project installed in your OSGeo4W environment. I think of cmake or mingw for instance. I think about a tool which let you set some parameters where you can define the compiler version you want to use (or the path to the script which setup environment variables, we may also think of adding some optional command line options to this batch script (if required but, I'm pretty sure it is required). This way, you choose one software you want to build from source from the OSGeo4W, then all the dependencies will be setup (packages in their dev versions), the required tools are setup (if not already setup as another software requirement) then the build is done from the OSGeo4W installer. Obviously, the source code should still be available after the build finished. If we can provide such a thing it means that you can apply after build finish the patches you want to apply on one software before building it again with fixes. I think it may be a great gain of time for Lazy Developers, as I am. I hope my answer is clear enough this time. Best regards, Gérald Fenoy http://www.osgeo.org Le 21 sept. 2013 à 02:01, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com a écrit : On 09/20/2013 05:33 PM, Dave Patton wrote: On 2013/09/20 16:39, Alex Mandel wrote: Unlike OSGeoLive we can't supply VMs as that takes paid licenses for the software in question. Alex - could you please clarify what you mean by this statement. Thanks We can't give out Windows Virtual Machine(VM) images with Visual Studio already installed. The Licensing terms of Windows
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO4W future
2013/9/20 Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it I suggest to make a Steering Committee for OSGEO4W, so to have a clear roadmap, and give Windows (urgh!) users a predictable environment. I think some of our million users would be happy to support this effort, if they would know they contribute actively to something they need. Hi Paolo, I agree with you entrirely, as we've already been talking about this today. Being committed to provide usable binaries on Windows, you can count me in. Setting up a build environment (probably a version of a Windows Server x64 edition with MSVC2010 for instance) providing to compile all the stuff at the same place would be a prerequisite. Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Charter Member Nomination: Even Rouault
I hereby nominate Even Rouault http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Even_Rouault as an OSGeo charter member. Even has been contributing to various software projects promoted by OSGeo (ie. GDAL, MapServer, Proj.4, libgeotiff, shapelib, libtiff) since 2006. He is a commiter of MapServer and GDAL, the maintainer of various drivers, the Java bindings and the member of the Project Steering Committee of GDAL since 2007. Even has already demonstrated his expertise and deep knowledge in the projects he is working on and he also provide valuable support for the users and developers on the related mailing lists, IRC channels and the trac. In addition to provide community support by fixing various issues throughout the entire project, he is one of the greatest innovator providing new functionalities and authoring several new drivers in GDAL/OGR, you've probably already utilized these in the related OSGeo projects as well. In addition to his development work, Even is also a leading figure in the QA testing of GDAL by increasing the test coveragehttp://even.rouault.free.fr/of it's Python test suite. Let us consider to appreciate his work by electing him as a charter member! Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Charter Member Selection: How to move along?
First of all, thank you for the nominees and the voting members who participated in the current selection, congratulations for those folks who have been selected this year, I wish you to have a good job in continuing the mission in the opensource geospatial world. Having this important task completed, we probably require to go ahead and jump to the conclusion how we can leave the problems down to satisfy with the primary objectives and mission. No manner of doubt the results of the election is perfect, however it was quite a big deal to select only 10 from all of those who have been nominated. I would highly support to enhance the current approach in that way which would provide to have the set of charter members to be consist of the most committed participants at all time. Upon thinking about such issues, I would have the following questions to be taken into account: Does it make sense to limit the number of the people at all, who wish to have this additional responsibility? In light of the statements in the OSGeo opening page Our goal is to encourage the use and collaborative development of community-led projects. I would count each individual having enough infiltration in specific areas and known by a fair amout of members (ie. by the charter members) either in the role of a user or a developer is a great value to be the part of this membership. Or do we have any technical limitations in the total number of members which prevents us from growing to be proportional to the members of the overall community? In this regard I guess all of those who get a specific amount of vote from the charter members should automatically be elected regardless of the total count of the people satisfying with this criteria. I think this wouldn't take the pep out of the members to be proud of being part of the core community. Is this responsibility enough to keep the charter members involved in taking part of the community work or having enough voice in defining the direction of the movement? Currently what we expect from the voters is only to keep an eye on the new potential charter members or board members which is great, but I think there can be futher areas in which the charter members could also play a role. For example we could give a help in the decision of specific areas which may have a wide range of interest, like selection from the proposals of the annual conference or the winner of the Sol Katz award or helping in such decisions which promote the direction and future of OSGeo. We could probably establish the rules of what kind of the decisions should be controlled this way. Would that be reasonable to limit the set of charter members to have only the active participants by establishing the step-down process of the members? I would consider for those who doesn't take part in voting for a long time, shouldn't be considered as being active and could be removed from the member's list within a scope of a specific process. Let me know if you have further ideas or anything to add. Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Source Library For ECW Conversion
GDAL has working SWIG bindings for Java and you could do the same as gdal_translate is doing by using the SWIG API. Some examples about how to use the java bindings can be found in the GDAL source tree: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/browser/trunk/gdal/swig/java/apps Best regards, Tamas 2009/5/13 Landon Blake lbl...@ksninc.com Daniel, I think this would do the trick. I know just enough shell scripting to be dangerous, but I think that I could pull this off. I appreciate the suggestion. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:11 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Source Library For ECW Conversion Landon Blake wrote: I'm looking for an open source library that will allow me to convert ECW images into a more common format like JPG or TIFF. I'd love it if there were something in Java, but I'm not running across anything via search engine query so far. Sounds like a job for gdal_translate: http://gdal.org/gdal_translate.html Don't let the complicated list of options scare you... for a simple conversion you'd use something like: gdal_translate -of GTiff src.ecw out.tif Not in Java, but you don't need to do any coding anyway, except perhaps write a script to run multiple conversions in batch. Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] methods for programatically adding fields to shapefiles
I think it wouldn't be a big deal extending OGR SQL to accept constant values in the select list. In this case the parser would place the constant value into the field_name memeber of swq_col_def, and field_index = -1 would denote that it should be treated as a constant in OGRGenSQLResultsLayer::TranslateFeature when copying the features over. Best regards, Tamas 2008/10/29 Tyler Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am interested in approaches for adding a populated field to a shapefile (for example, adding a new field named 'source_url' with the value 'http://somewebsite.com'). I would like to do this for several thousand files. At first I thought that I might be able to accomplish it using ogr2org with a sql clause, such as: ogr2ogr -sql select *, 'http://somewebsite.com' as source_url from infile outfile.shp infile.shp but that didn't work since ogr2ogr supports a limited set of SQL, described at: http://www.gdal.org/ogr/ogr_sql.html Any ideas on how to accomplish this? (I would prefer suggestions that can be scripted with python.) - Tyler -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/methods-for-programatically-adding-fields-to-shapefiles-tp1395535p1395535.html Sent from the OSGeo Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Supporting new projects
Paul, As reading the replies up to now I continue to think what OSGeo can do is more adding some technical expertise rather than creating a venue and a project advertising board. Currently I feel a significant power around the users and developers forming the OSGeo to decide or at least give some point of consideration whether a project should be brought to alive or not, definitely. Therefore it would be prudent for the developers/designers to have been measured with the ideas by a broader community before creating a new project. This would be good for the project and the OSGeo as well, because: 1. The designer could avoid spending quite some time and money for a functionality they already have, but no one have ever mentioned about the possibilities by pointing them to a right project's direction. 2. The new project could make sure that the idea behind that is compelling enough to grow a large community around that. Having the support of the majority of the developers and users of OSGeo could add the necessary initiative to that. 3. The OSGeo could get to know whether we've lack of the functionality in some areas or the relevant projects should solve some substantial issues they still haven't been aware of to make their existing functionality usable. 4. The OSGeo could have some feedback what is happening behind the scenes of the projects around the open source geospatial area. I'm pretty sure getting to know about a full featured new project with it's functionality is more frustrating for the existing projects than getting up to date information about the ongoing projects and how those will complement the current functionality. Certainly the new project may decide to go on it's own way an omit all of the information the OSGeo could provide, however that might possibly cause potential difficulties when they'd like to apply for an official support by the community one day. Having the infrastructure inside the OSGeo or not is not the biggest issue. In my opinion allowing to host the new projects inside the OSGeo could save some efforts from the developers when they decide to join to the infrastructure. Doing so after the incubation is somewhat painful as far as I've experienced that with some already incubated projects. However, AFAIK, it's not compulsory either to join to the infrastucture after the incubation process. I think OSGeo could support projects with similar functionalities as well, but we should make sure about the extra information how these projects behave in a different way for the user. For example those might be different in technology (like java or C/C++ based) or provide a different user experience etc. OSGeo should only support those open source geospatial projects that are definitely incubatable by the means those'll someday get the officially supported certificate from the community. Best regards, Tamas 2007/10/1, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 30-Sep-07, at 6:21 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote: 2007/9/30, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What do others think about this? Should OSGeo be in the business of helping new OSGeo projects get off the ground? Absolutely. That could allow the identities to focus on establishing the core funcionality much easier without having to bother with creating the infrastructure behind that. this is only part of it. More than infrastructure (which we could easily just point projects to sourceforge for), I am hoping we can build a communications channel that allows new projects to attract interest and feedback Furthermore I have the following additions/considerations according to the responsibilities of the OSGeo from this aspect: 1. OSGeo might establish the possibility to accept new project plans in a well formaized manner. In so much as we are guiding them to launching their project, not to filtering or eliminating them before they even get started 2. OSGeo should form a committe (or extend the roles of the incubation committe or the role of the charter members) to decide whether a project plan will possibly have a fair amount of interest regarding to the functionality and technology it has. I personally would prefer if a wider range of the community would be involved. Here I think the 'best of breed' approach will provide all that is needed. If we provide support in the form of communications, users will try out new projects if it aligns with their needs. If the idea/ project is good, it will grow a community of users and developers. If not, it will die or remain a one-person project. 3. OSGeo should provide the necessary infrastucture for the project initiatives so that they could proceed in approaching a stable project state (an estimated plan with the milestones should also be gathered) This is a possibility, but one that potentially stretches our existing resources. If it is feasible to have a 'zero-effort' project creation process then fine. If not, I would
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Supporting new projects
2007/9/30, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What do others think about this? Should OSGeo be in the business of helping new OSGeo projects get off the ground? Absolutely. That could allow the identities to focus on establishing the core funcionality much easier without having to bother with creating the infrastructure behind that. Furthermore I have the following additions/considerations according to the responsibilities of the OSGeo from this aspect: 1. OSGeo might establish the possibility to accept new project plans in a well formaized manner. 2. OSGeo should form a committe (or extend the roles of the incubation committe or the role of the charter members) to decide whether a project plan will possibly have a fair amount of interest regarding to the functionality and technology it has. I personally would prefer if a wider range of the community would be involved. 3. OSGeo should provide the necessary infrastucture for the project initiatives so that they could proceed in approaching a stable project state (an estimated plan with the milestones should also be gathered) 4. OGGeo would use some measures around whether the project is making a good progress and the community around that is somewhat increasing. 5. The neglected projects are to be declared as obsolete by the OSGeo (by using a voting process). 6. The project initiatives having a stable release could apply for starting the incubation process for getting the OSGeo officially supported state. More comments: - OSGeo should continue to officially support only the incubated projects having a fairly considerable community around each and possibly continue to be supported in the future as well. - As the number of the projects is increasing OSGeo should start providing a better categorization between the projects and their functionalities/technologies for guiding the new users to make the selection easier an find the differences between them in connection with the desired specifications they have. - Project duplicates should be avoided, new incremental functionalities should be stirred towards the existing projects as much as possible. Best regards, Tamas ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Board Election Results
Hi All, It seems I've generated an inadvertent influence by proposing this option. I didn't want to embarrass any of the nominees on the contrary seeing a little difference between x any y would show up more about the results than knowing that x have been elected and y have not. But indeed this behaviour could also be reflected by extracting some statistical results as well, so eventually there's no need to publish the votes one by one so as to find out more about the voting itself. I would also support to enhance the process how the charter members will get to know more about the nominees and the desired viewpoints to be taken into account when voting, so as to make sure about the benefit with the selection the OSGEO community will obtain. Best regards, Tamas Szekeres ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Board Election Results
I'd also like to see the total count of votes per person it it is possible. I guess it might have been a close competition. Best regards, Tamas Szekeres 2007/8/7, OSGeo CRO Tyler Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The election for the OSGeo Board of Directors in now completed. The following, in alphabetical order, were elected to fill the 5 vacant positions: * Jeroen Ticheler * Jo Walsh (re-elected) * Markus Neteler (re-elected) * Paul Ramsey * Robert (Bob) Bray We had good voter turnout - 90% of the charter members voted. Your resulting new Board will be composed of: * Arnulf Christl * Chris Holmes * Dave McIllhagga * Frank Warmerdam * Jeroen Ticheler * Jo Walsh (re-elected) * Markus Neteler (re-elected) * Paul Ramsey * Robert (Bob) Bray Please join me in welcoming the new directors and thanking the outgoing directors for their critical involvement during OSGeo's first year. Also, please thank all nominees for letting their names stand during the election. Voters had tough voting decisions as all nominees came with strong recommendations and experience. Sincerely, Tyler Tyler Mitchell Chief Returning Officer Secretary OSGeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-250-277-1621 ___ 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
