<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<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>Dave has said to me that he thought there might be a confusion or tension between us but now doesn't think so.<BR>
<BR>
This feels like a non-issue/self-generated concern, and I am not sure where the concern comes from. I'm probably out of some loop here.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: board-bounces@lists.osgeo.org on behalf of Jo Walsh<BR>
Sent: Sat 1/6/2007 2:07 AM<BR>
To: Frank Warmerdam (External)<BR>
Cc: board@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [Board] OGC Relationship<BR>
<BR>
dear all,<BR>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:03:12PM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:<BR>
> I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return. I suspect ultimately what<BR>
> would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not become a<BR>
> a "standards development" organization.<BR>
<BR>
This scares me a bit, the idea of signing a non-compete, in order to<BR>
be able to work better in a collaborative fashion.<BR>
<BR>
> The other angle might be some sort of more active involvement of OSGeo<BR>
> projects<BR>
> in OGC testbeds and other IE efforts. However, it is hard for us to force<BR>
> project involvement. It might be appropriate for the foundation to provide<BR>
> some modest supporting funding for project involvement in OGC testbeds and<BR>
> interoperability experiments. For instance, providing travel funding.<BR>
<BR>
Given the amount of high-level, high-value corporate funding flowing<BR>
through OGC, including from OSGeo members; offering money-value rather<BR>
than social-value as a 'sweetener' to indicate the foundation's goodwill,<BR>
makes no sense.<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 organization.<BR>
> I'm not keen on that, but it might be prudent to give these folks a chance<BR>
> to make their case.<BR>
<BR>
Well, i think that OSGeo already *is* such a thing, in terms of the<BR>
developments that have already gone on. Note that many of them are in<BR>
EOGEO's space (lists hosted there, efforts originated there.) If<BR>
anyone *really* wants to point at something and say, "this is an<BR>
ad-hoc, implementation driven pre-standards development effort", then<BR>
it would be there.<BR>
<BR>
Well, this is a weird topic because there is 'tension' every time it<BR>
comes up. Where is that tension coming from and what is the best way<BR>
to get it resolved happily, given we seem to be past the point where<BR>
smiling and saying nothing and keeping on building is viable anymore.<BR>
<BR>
I am concerned that we may be assuming a lot about the attitude of OGC<BR>
decisionmakers towards the Foundation. Can't we ask them outright?<BR>
<BR>
best wishes,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
jo<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>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>