Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
I find that an argument that seats well with management is open source scales for free, while proprietary is itself a financial obstacle when you need to grow your system, be it to support more load server-side, add more client-side machines, or add new applications to your portfolio (usually a combo of these). In proprietary you can only grow in functionality by increasing your annual budget just for keeping the software, without even considering any development or training costs. So in the long run, your base costs creep up, like a memory leak ;). Many times you see a system be completely shut down because its maintenance costs got to a value someone just decides it is not worth paying anymore. Then you are forced to go open source, in a very painful way. Bottom line, in the medium/long term open source offers a significant financial stability, that can in fact mean the sustainability of your system. Duarte De: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) [mailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us] Enviada: quarta-feira, 16 de Outubro de 2013 17:01 Para: Norman Vine; osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Assunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Norman, We're thoroughly entrenched with a OpenSource installation right along side a bunch of commercial products. It's been very hard for any commercial vendor to even get a leg up in our office for a number of years now because we've got so much stuff already working via OpenSource (and also available to the commercial products.) However, we still don't have a top level position to over see these things, and there is still splintering of resources that is taking place. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Norman Vine Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:57 AM To: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) disc On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb Bobb I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to vet adherence to any OpenStandard In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance as such Norman -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.comhttp://gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto: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] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Duarte, Thanks for your thoughts. They are very well organized and clear (and clear up some of my own thoughts on the topic) I think they will end up in the after the fact discussion more than the up front discussion related to setting up a position/title. I may be off base here though, so stay tuned. Bobb From: Duarte Carreira [mailto:dcarre...@edia.pt] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:38 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul); Norman Vine; osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) I find that an argument that seats well with management is open source scales for free, while proprietary is itself a financial obstacle when you need to grow your system, be it to support more load server-side, add more client-side machines, or add new applications to your portfolio (usually a combo of these). In proprietary you can only grow in functionality by increasing your annual budget just for keeping the software, without even considering any development or training costs. So in the long run, your base costs creep up, like a memory leak ;). Many times you see a system be completely shut down because its maintenance costs got to a value someone just decides it is not worth paying anymore. Then you are forced to go open source, in a very painful way. Bottom line, in the medium/long term open source offers a significant financial stability, that can in fact mean the sustainability of your system. Duarte De: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) [mailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us] Enviada: quarta-feira, 16 de Outubro de 2013 17:01 Para: Norman Vine; osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Assunto: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Norman, We're thoroughly entrenched with a OpenSource installation right along side a bunch of commercial products. It's been very hard for any commercial vendor to even get a leg up in our office for a number of years now because we've got so much stuff already working via OpenSource (and also available to the commercial products.) However, we still don't have a top level position to over see these things, and there is still splintering of resources that is taking place. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Norman Vine Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:57 AM To: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) disc On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb Bobb I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to vet adherence to any OpenStandard In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance as such Norman -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.comhttp://gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto: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
[OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward enough here. I'm trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn't reference anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial packages at the same time. I'm basically thinking about going the route of data standards both for archiving as well as distribution. So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument (Our Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above statement, as if they wanted to include some specific commercial application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end I'm trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open approach is better than a commercial one and the standards piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on. Thanks Bobb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I’m looking for the other side of the argument (I know it’s hard to put yourself there :c). “Open Source software enforces standards” Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward enough here. I’m trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn’t reference anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial packages at the same time. I’m basically thinking about going the route of data standards both for archiving as well as distribution. So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument (Our Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above statement, as if they wanted to include some specific commercial application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end I’m trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open approach is better than a commercial one and the standards piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on. In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people who know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions), they usually come with: * Standars aren't the better format to work with * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are optimized for the propietary software * We already have the information on the propietary format and don't want to migrate And, of course: * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is very tricky to fight against) Good luck! María. Thanks Bobb ___ 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] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Maybe take it from a different angle? - Open Source software facilitates interoperability or - Open Source software breaks vendor lock-in Vendor lock-in is a tactic used to protect a vendor's licensing revenue stream by ensuring that customers cannot easily switch to another suite of software, and interoperability through open standards and truly open APIs is the best cure I can think of against that. Open Source software excels at interoperability because the vendor lock-in gene is generally absent from the DNA of its developers. Daniel P.S. I see that Arnie Shore beat me by sending something along the same lines a few seconds ago, but I thought I'd hit send anyway On 13-10-16 10:50 AM, María Arias de Reyna wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I’m looking for the other side of the argument (I know it’s hard to put yourself there :c). “Open Source software enforces standards” Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward enough here. I’m trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn’t reference anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial packages at the same time. I’m basically thinking about going the route of data standards both for archiving as well as distribution. So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument (Our Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above statement, as if they wanted to include some specific commercial application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end I’m trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open approach is better than a commercial one and the standards piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on. In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people who know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions), they usually come with: * Standars aren't the better format to work with * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are optimized for the propietary software * We already have the information on the propietary format and don't want to migrate And, of course: * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is very tricky to fight against) Good luck! María. Thanks Bobb ___ 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 -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Daniel, I'm not sure why exactly, but the facilitates interoperability seems fluffy for some reason. It might be something to integrate into the original statement however. The vendor lock-in piece is definitely something that will need to be included somehow, but I'm thinking there or two things here based on the replies so far, one is for a description of the position and another would be to define some sort of policy/or, dare I say it, best practice document, hopefully something that is hard to refute. All good thoughts. Bobb -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss- boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:10 AM To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Maybe take it from a different angle? - Open Source software facilitates interoperability or - Open Source software breaks vendor lock-in Vendor lock-in is a tactic used to protect a vendor's licensing revenue stream by ensuring that customers cannot easily switch to another suite of software, and interoperability through open standards and truly open APIs is the best cure I can think of against that. Open Source software excels at interoperability because the vendor lock-in gene is generally absent from the DNA of its developers. Daniel P.S. I see that Arnie Shore beat me by sending something along the same lines a few seconds ago, but I thought I'd hit send anyway On 13-10-16 10:50 AM, María Arias de Reyna wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward enough here. I'm trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn't reference anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial packages at the same time. I'm basically thinking about going the route of data standards both for archiving as well as distribution. So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument (Our Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above statement, as if they wanted to include some specific commercial application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end I'm trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open approach is better than a commercial one and the standards piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on. In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people who know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions), they usually come with: * Standars aren't the better format to work with * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are optimized for the propietary software * We already have the information on the propietary format and don't want to migrate And, of course: * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is very tricky to fight against) Good luck! María. Thanks Bobb ___ 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 -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 ___ 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] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Hi Maria, Thanks for the thoughts. See my sudo responses inline . . . I'm using this thread as a practice round of discussion . . . Open Source software enforces standards In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people who know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions), they usually come with: * Standars aren't the better format to work with The above seems like the hardest to respond to. * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are optimized for the propietary software My response would be as long as the proprietary package can export in a standard form/format. * We already have the information on the propietary format and don't want to migrate Same as above. Again not trying to preclude proprietary, but more to make things interoperable and standard. And, of course: * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is very tricky to fight against) So prove it, connect to these standard datasets (NOW!) :c) Again, thanks for your thoughts here. Bobb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
disc On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb Bobb I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to vet adherence to any OpenStandard In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance as such Norman -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ 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] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Norman, We're thoroughly entrenched with a OpenSource installation right along side a bunch of commercial products. It's been very hard for any commercial vendor to even get a leg up in our office for a number of years now because we've got so much stuff already working via OpenSource (and also available to the commercial products.) However, we still don't have a top level position to over see these things, and there is still splintering of resources that is taking place. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Norman Vine Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:57 AM To: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) disc On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb Bobb I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to vet adherence to any OpenStandard In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance as such Norman -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.comhttp://gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto: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] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .)
Sure, but it should be the GIO's role to decide when to go with one solution vs another. To me that is their job description. Duties: Assess and plan implementation of geospatial software solutions that meet the needs of the science team. Includes web, field, desktop and database geospatial integration. Implements open standards when possible to ensure maximum interoperability and flexibility of solutions. Implements cross platform solutions for Windows, Linux, Mac, tablets and other systems already in use, Stated Preference: We prefer a candidate with experience implementing open source geospatial solutions. Current implementation includes a variety of commercial, open source, mixed and customized geospatial applications. The decision to go open source is then framed, and in the interview process, if your office has culture of Open Source you weed out candidates by their philosphy towards Open Source. This should be a valid way to judge candidates. By stating a preference for someone who already has experience or is willing to use open source its a line to divide by. It'll be pretty hard to find non open source solutions that meet at the requirements above. Thanks, Alex On 10/16/2013 09:00 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote: Norman, We're thoroughly entrenched with a OpenSource installation right along side a bunch of commercial products. It's been very hard for any commercial vendor to even get a leg up in our office for a number of years now because we've got so much stuff already working via OpenSource (and also available to the commercial products.) However, we still don't have a top level position to over see these things, and there is still splintering of resources that is taking place. Bobb From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Norman Vine Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:57 AM To: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) disc On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Arnie, Vendor lock-in, or rather preventing it, would be a strong second as far as reasons go, but it's not really applicable to describing a positions work items (I don't think) and seems like it might be closer to a policy issue (in my mind). Thanks for the feedback. Bobb Bobb I would argue that one needs an OpenSource Reference implementation to vet adherence to any OpenStandard In fact I would go even further and say that any new OpenStandard proposal should be accompanied by an OpenSource implementation before acceptance as such Norman -Original Message- From: Arnie Shore [mailto:shor...@gmail.comhttp://gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:04 AM To: Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) Cc: osgeo-discuss (discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org) Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or attmepting to . . .) Well, adherence to standards is integral to the issue of interoperability, a critical project success factor in this increasingly interconnected world. And, there's no motivation for vendor lock-in, since the revenue protection motivation (usually!) doesn't exist. (I can tell you re all of the verbiage I've excreted in a prior life justifying sole-source procurements.) Also, possibly important for the devout among us is that the Good Lord must love standards; She made so many of them! AS On 10/16/13, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.usmailto:bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us wrote: Hi all, I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following statement, I'm looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to put yourself there :c). Open Source software enforces standards ... snip / ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.orgmailto: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
