[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site
Jeffrey Johnson
ortelius at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 17:58:13 PDT 2017
Note the news section is intended for news related to a specific
service provider. Its *not* doing this now, so its unclear.
Can you file an issue about the search. Agree this should work for a
project name here.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky
<jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> yes for me (OpenGeoLabs) it works as it is now - we are listed, we have
> links to projects we can support, there is logo, picture, web page, once it
> works, we are gonna be on the map, what could I possibly ask for more? (if
> the graphics around "News" will be made more clear)
>
> side note: maybe adding note, that if you are searching for specifing
> service provider related to project, you should go to project page and find
> the service providers there, since search "geoserver" does not return any
> result at this page
>
> J
>
>
> út 22. 8. 2017 v 1:24 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> napsal:
>>
>> Jeff have you heard from any small companies that feel alienated? For many
>> being a small company gives them a chance to offer personal service. I do
>> not want to make assumptions if we can help it.
>>
>> My feedback was actually focused on the site design, partnership & friend
>> relationships are appropriate for government and NGOs, geoforall labs are
>> the appropriate relationship for education and science etc. If that is clear
>> we can return to the earlier discussion - specifically about service
>> provider size. (we should also be sure to capture this discussion on the
>> issue tracker so it can actually inform the review of the website).
>>
>> Many of these decisions already took place during the earlier wireframe
>> stage of the project (by contributors who stepped up to the marketing
>> committee). We already went back to the drawing table on some of the key
>> decisions during wire framing and initial website design.
>>
>> To clearly set expectations - we will not have a chance to revisit each
>> and every decision due to limitations on time/budget. It is hard though,
>> because it is much easier to care about a website when it is pretty and we
>> can all see it :)
>>
>> My initial message to Jachym was trying to confirm that the organization
>> size worked for opengeolabs (simply because this was already a decision that
>> had been revisited once).
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM Jeff McKenna
>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jody,
>>>
>>> By alienating the smaller OSGeo companies in our new website, I don't
>>> see a benefit to OSGeo at all. Let us please all sizes of OSGeo
>>> companies, small and big.
>>>
>>> Yes this is tricky, for sure, even your initial message to Jachym shows
>>> a lot of what it could be like, if OSGeo suddenly distinguishes size.
>>> Let's avoid this totally, I believe.
>>>
>>> I am open to other suggestions to the wording as well.
>>>
>>> Tricky! :)
>>>
>>> -jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-08-21 6:53 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> > I already changed it from number to the size thing.
>>> >
>>> > This list was for support providers (since the website is about
>>> > outreach
>>> > looks at projects, local chapters and service providers).
>>> >
>>> > GeoForAll labs and academic / research outreach are in slightly
>>> > different spot (we could cross link). See
>>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/geo-for-all-labs/
>>> >
>>> > I do not think public:government, NGO/non-profit would like to be
>>> > contacted for commercial support :) That said they can be listed in our
>>> > site as partners and friends. Sort order is given to groups with a
>>> > defined relationship with OSGeo (such as ISPRS, LocationTech,...). See
>>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/partners/
>>> >
>>> > Recognizing service providers on our website in this way is a new thing
>>> > - I hope it works out :)
>>> >
>>> > This design is full of difficult decisions thanks for contributing to
>>> > the discussion (and content).
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:30 PM Jeff McKenna
>>> > <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Jachym,
>>> >
>>> > Yes I agree, it is a slippery slope that once we/OSGeo decide that
>>> > size
>>> > is an important part of our organization (as you know, many other
>>> > organizations separate their membership by size), it opens up so
>>> > many
>>> > other challenges. For that reason, I spoke up here to suggest that
>>> > we
>>> > avoid all that, by suggesting 4 options to cover that.
>>> >
>>> > Indeed my proposal does include all organizations, purposely.
>>> > OSGeo is
>>> > built on that, and has done an amazing job in creating a thriving
>>> > community.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for listening Jachym,
>>> >
>>> > -jeff
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2017-08-21 6:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>>> > > Hi Jeff (all)
>>> > >
>>> > > currently, the page is listing "service providers" - it's
>>> > project
>>> > > oriented (as providing services to projects)
>>> > >
>>> > > your proposal is shifting it little bit to "all organisations",
>>> > not even
>>> > > service providing - but what is their releationship to the
>>> > (osgeo)
>>> > > projects? - still, it would be fine to me
>>> > >
>>> > > I would be +1 for it, if it's does not hit to some other
>>> > principle,
>>> > > already hardcoded in the page (e.g.
>>> > > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/initiatives/geo-for-all/ is
>>> > partly
>>> > > coreving the Academic/Research topic - just an example of
>>> > potencial
>>> > > conflict, which we could oversee)
>>> > >
>>> > > I do not know, just noting, I have no strong opinion - I want to
>>> > be
>>> > > inclusive, all for adding another categories, but the rules and
>>> > > principals should be clear. Currently, how I understand it "you
>>> > can be
>>> > > listed as long as you are providing services to projects"
>>> > >
>>> > > J
>>> > >
>>> > > út 22. 8. 2017 v 0:11 odesílatel Jeff McKenna
>>> > > <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>> > <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
>>> > <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>> > <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>>
>>> > > napsal:
>>> > >
>>> > > On 2017-08-21 5:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> > > > For your page
>>> > > >
>>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is
>>> > > that a
>>> > > > single consultant (you!) or a company?
>>> > > > (or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it)
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi Jody,
>>> > >
>>> > > Regarding separating the OSGeo community by size, I suggest
>>> > that we
>>> > > avoid offending our community members, so let's stay
>>> > positive
>>> > and make
>>> > > the following change:
>>> > >
>>> > > I recommend that we/OSGeo change the "Organization Type"
>>> > section to
>>> > > contain the following 4 options:
>>> > >
>>> > > 1. Private
>>> > > 2. Academic/Research
>>> > > 3. Public/Government
>>> > > 4. Non-profit
>>> > >
>>> > > The same 4 options should be applied to the options in the
>>> > "Filter"
>>> > > search on the site for "Service Provider Type".
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks.
>>> > >
>>> > > Jachym: you did a great job on the OpenGeoLabs page, and
>>> > thanks for
>>> > > supporting OSGeo all of these years :)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -jeff
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Jeff McKenna
>>> > > President Emeritus, OSGeo Foundation
>>> > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
More information about the Discuss
mailing list