<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.6618.4">
<TITLE>Re: [Board] OGC Relationship</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Exactly.<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------<BR>
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Chris Holmes <cholmes@openplans.org><BR>
To: Michael P. Gerlek <mpg@lizardtech.com><BR>
Cc: Gary Lang; Frank Warmerdam (External); board@lists.osgeo.org <board@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Jan 05 09:26:58 2007<BR>
Subject: Re: [Board] OGC Relationship<BR>
<BR>
Oh I'm against basically any level of trying to prevent our members from<BR>
doing work that might be considered 'standards work'. I thought that<BR>
saying 'we're not in the standards business' would basically mean that<BR>
we wouldn't say that anything our members collaborate on is an 'official<BR>
standard'. Just that it's an incubating space for things that may turn<BR>
in to real standards, for example when they go to the OGC. In my<BR>
opinion we can do all these activities we speak of, and even let them<BR>
become pseudo-standards. But we as an organization are not in the<BR>
business of promoting the standards or trying to get anyone to use them.<BR>
If we want to do that, then we pass along to the OGC.<BR>
<BR>
I was assuming that's about all they wanted out of us?<BR>
<BR>
When I talked to Raj awhile ago the thing he mentioned as by far having<BR>
the most value to OGC would be for OSGeo members to actually collaborate<BR>
on creating standards. And I'm pretty sure he's also fine with us<BR>
starting them in a 'safer' space like our wiki, and passing them on to<BR>
general OGC when we're happier with them.<BR>
<BR>
Chris<BR>
<BR>
Michael P. Gerlek wrote:<BR>
> No, our charter doesn't say we're in the standards business -- but<BR>
> nonetheless, I see a lot of standards-like discussions going on via<BR>
> OSGeo channels.<BR>
><BR>
> I think it would be a mistake to provide a commitment to OGC that we'd<BR>
> not do standards work, for two reasons.<BR>
><BR>
> First, if we tell our members that they can't do standards within OSGeo<BR>
> channels, then they'll just route around us in classic internet fashion<BR>
> and find some other venue. And so if we really want to serve our<BR>
> community's needs and interests, why would we force them to go somewhere<BR>
> else?<BR>
><BR>
> Second, who's to say what "developing and supporting our own standards"<BR>
> means? Discussions on a mailing list about possible extensions to WMS?<BR>
> Collaboratively writing up a WCS change proposal on our wiki to submit<BR>
> to OGC? Implementing a prototype of something in MapServer? How could<BR>
> you possibly enforce this? Who's gonna be the one to say "Sorry, guys,<BR>
> but you can't use the osgeo IRC channel to talk about testing WMS-T<BR>
> because WMS is an OGC spec" or "Folks, could you please stop talking<BR>
> about possible alternatives to ebRIM on the geodata mailing list,<BR>
> because we don't want to look like we're contravening the OGC spec"?<BR>
><BR>
> I'm all in favor of working in with OGC, but not to the point of making<BR>
> foundation-level commitments that go against our members' obvious needs<BR>
> and wants.<BR>
><BR>
> -mpg<BR>
><BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
>> -----Original Message-----<BR>
>> From: board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> [<A HREF="mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</A>] On Behalf Of Gary Lang<BR>
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:01 AM<BR>
>> To: Frank Warmerdam (External); board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> Subject: RE: [Board] OGC Relationship<BR>
>><BR>
>> "I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return. I suspect ultimately<BR>
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not<BR>
>> become a a "standards development" organization. This avoids<BR>
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they<BR>
>> might consider<BR>
>> competition."<BR>
>><BR>
>> >From talking with David, I think is exactly what we would usefully<BR>
>> offer, and for two reasons:<BR>
>><BR>
>> a) we're not in the standards business. It's not in our top<BR>
>> priorities,<BR>
>> last I looked<BR>
>> b) exactly what you said - "avoids duplication, confusion in the<BR>
>> marketplace"<BR>
>><BR>
>> If a) is true, then providing comfort and clarity around b) seems a<BR>
>> no-brainer.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Gary<BR>
>><BR>
>> -----Original Message-----<BR>
>> From: board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> [<A HREF="mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</A>] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam<BR>
>> (External)<BR>
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:03 AM<BR>
>> To: board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> Subject: [Board] OGC Relationship<BR>
>><BR>
>> Folks,<BR>
>><BR>
>> I'm taking the liberty of moving (at least part) of this discussion to<BR>
>> the public board list.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I am favorable on the idea of a formal liason relationship with OGC<BR>
>> though I don't consider it particularly critical to us or them since<BR>
>> there is already extensive cross membership and cross pollination.<BR>
>><BR>
>> If we are to have a formal liason relationship, one benefit I<BR>
>> would like<BR>
>> to see is the ability for us give some developers access to<BR>
>> working OGC<BR>
>> documents, and for those developers to be involved in OGC<BR>
>> testbeds, and<BR>
>> working groups as OSGeo representatives. I believe the OGC portal<BR>
>> allows members to setup accounts for individuals to access the portal.<BR>
>> We could manage a list of developers-with-access via this mechanism,<BR>
>> with the understanding that we would never have more than some fixed<BR>
>> number of developers (or users really) so authorized. I think even<BR>
>> doing this for 5-10 would be plenty since most OSGeo project<BR>
>> folks with<BR>
>> an interest in OGC work already have access through corporate<BR>
>> memberships.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return. I suspect ultimately<BR>
>> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not<BR>
>> become a a "standards development" organization. This avoids<BR>
>> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they<BR>
>> might consider<BR>
>> competition.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I'd be agreeable with this, but it must be understood that<BR>
>> self-organizing working groups within and between OSGeo projects are<BR>
>> likely to develop specifications such as GeoRSS, or the web tile<BR>
>> specification whether we encourage it or not, and I don't<BR>
>> want to be in<BR>
>> the position of discouraging<BR>
>> that. So we must be careful that such activities are not precluded.<BR>
>> At<BR>
>> most I think the board could offer to not develop and support our own<BR>
>> standards development process - understanding that we won't supress it<BR>
>> either.<BR>
>><BR>
>> The other angle might be some sort of more active involvement of OSGeo<BR>
>> projects in OGC testbeds and other IE efforts. However, it<BR>
>> is hard for<BR>
>> us to force project involvement. It might be appropriate for the<BR>
>> foundation to provide some modest supporting funding for project<BR>
>> involvement in OGC testbeds and interoperability experiments. For<BR>
>> instance, providing travel funding.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Note that there are at least a few people who would like to see OSGeo<BR>
>> become a sort of light weight agile standards development<BR>
>> organization.<BR>
>> I'm not keen on that, but it might be prudent to give these folks a<BR>
>> chance to make their case.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Best regards,<BR>
>> --<BR>
>> ---------------------------------------+----------------------<BR>
>> ----------<BR>
>> ---------------------------------------+------<BR>
>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam,<BR>
>> warmerdam@pobox.com<BR>
>> light and sound - activate the windows | <A HREF="http://pobox.com/~warmerdam">http://pobox.com/~warmerdam</A><BR>
>> and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo,<BR>
>> <A HREF="http://osgeo.org">http://osgeo.org</A><BR>
>><BR>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>> Board mailing list<BR>
>> Board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> <A HREF="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</A><BR>
>><BR>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>> Board mailing list<BR>
>> Board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
>> <A HREF="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</A><BR>
>><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> Board mailing list<BR>
> Board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</A><BR>
><BR>
> !DSPAM:1003,459f1490125821362196140!<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Chris Holmes<BR>
The Open Planning Project<BR>
<A HREF="http://topp.openplans.org">http://topp.openplans.org</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>