[Geomoose-users] RFC-2

[James Klassen]

Actually, in that light it might just be cleaner to strike the "similar to
MapServer's" line.  MapServer doesn't really justify why we need a mission
statement.

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>wrote:

>  Eli,
>
>  The only comment I have a couple of slight comments, about the reference
> to MapServer.   Seems like this is out of place in here for some reason.
>  Maybe expanding that comment to include the other open source projects
> that are included and how they might be similarly administered.  the
> refence to ". . . the website as a representation . . .", might this be
> better with a link to the actual website (due to possible replication of
> the page?), to something like " . . . . the website (geomoose.org) as a
> representation . . ."
>
>  bobb
>
>
>
> >>> Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>     RFC-2 is available for review.  Voice your thoughts in the next
> few days.  I'll change the status to proposed and call for a vote next
> week.
>
> http://geomoose.org/trunk/rfc/rfc-2.html
>
> Regards, Eli
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20120420/5371bb50/attachment.html