<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com" target="_blank">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 02/03/13 03:38, Paolo Cavallini wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
Il 01/03/2013 15:18, Jeff McKenna ha scritto:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4) Supporting packaging/distribution of our projects. The Board<br>
realizes the importance of packages such as OSGeoLive, and is willing to<br>
provide financial support where possible.<br>
</blockquote>
IMHO, osgeo4w is one of the most visible and important direct contribution of osgeo<br>
to the cause. Currently is badly understaffed, mostly based on voultary work, and as<br>
a result many packages are not up to date, which gives several problems to our users.<br>
My suggestion is to give this project more resources.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
Paolo,<br>
I agree that osgeo4w is an excellent initiative, and I'd love to see it excel. However, I don't think OSGeo throwing money at the project is the path to success. What is required is one of two dedicated volunteers to put in some hard hours to push the project forward, which in turn would attract a greater community.<br>
Related to funding priorities, please refer back to:<br>
<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Support_initiatives_which_support_themselves" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<u></u>Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#<u></u>Support_initiatives_which_<u></u>support_themselves</a><div class="im HOEnZb">
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Folks,</div><div><br></div><div>I will note that I think providing supportive funding for OSGeo4W </div><div>does count as supporting initiatives that support themselves. For</div>
<div>me this means support efforts that have already demonstrated</div><div>community interest amoung users and contributors. I think </div><div>OSGeo4W has done both. </div><div><br></div><div>I must admit I'm not absolutely certain what the best way is</div>
<div>to move OSGeo4W forward. Given the right person interested</div><div>in working on the project full time (or a substantial part time)</div><div>at a "scrappy" price, I'd push for funding but I'm not sure that</div>
<div>such a person exists. </div><div><br></div><div>There are also some technical direction issues with</div><div>OSGeo4W that remain open. </div><div> - Should we stay focused on just 32bit or add/switch to 64bit?</div>
<div> - Should we do "complete refreshes" every could of</div><div> years instead of the package by package updating </div><div> that works well at the high level but not so well down</div><div> in the low level packages (like GDAL). </div>
<div>- Do we continue to invest in the existing Cygwin derived</div><div> installer?</div><div><br></div><div>Anyways, I don't want to dive into great detail on the board</div><div>list, but I do think OSGeo4W is worthy of OSGeo funding </div>
<div>if the project had a clear plan how such funding would </div><div>work. </div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div></div>-- <br>---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------<br>I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, <a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com" target="_blank">warmerdam@pobox.com</a><br>
light and sound - activate the windows | <a href="http://pobox.com/~warmerdam" target="_blank">http://pobox.com/~warmerdam</a><br>and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer<br>