Choosing the Choosers
lester at LSCES.CO.UK
Mon Dec 19 14:58:32 EST 2005
Tyler Mitchell wrote:
> On December 18, 2005 00:05, Lester Caine wrote:
>>Tyler Mitchell wrote:
>>>So, I'm partly ambivalent about where the project lives, but partly
>>>focused on ensuring that it lives in a place that helps the community
>>>grow as much as possible.
>>That is perhaps why a tie up with Autodesk raises alarm bells?
>>Autodesk's intentions HAVE to be in their interest...
> I'm not quite sure how we ended talking about Autodesk, I was just making the
> point that whether MapServer code is available through UMN or a foundation
> (or somewhere else) is really a moot point for me. Of course UMN and
> everyone else involved have their own best interests in mind, but that
> doesn't mean they are exclusively self-focused, we know that it is not true.
It was more a matter of WHICH MapServer ;)
Are we talking about the engine that currently is called MapServer and
providing a framework for supporting that ( which personally I would
prefer ) or Junior MapServer which is tied up with a product that is not
MapServer and will not run any current MapServer data.
> MapServer is surrounded and supported by major financial contributions and
> professional developer time that neither you and I pay for. This is why we
> need to have a group manage the bigger picture project related affairs and
> not just leave it to chance, so that the companies, contributors and users
> can work collectively in a slightly more formal manner. At this point, we
> are not talking about Autodesk or the foundation or any other product, we are
> talking about the MapServer project and how best to move forward.
MapServer as an entity in it's own right is in a strong position. Some
of us are just concerned that the 'appearance' of an 'new' MapServer is
a problem so HAS Autodesk agreed to drop the name. If not then we need
to have a different discussion.
>>Even if it has nice new tools, I already
>>have an 'Enterprise' interface into MapServer and don't need the
>>distractions that an alternative it is creating :(:(
> Choice is usually considered a good thing Lester! :) And this new choice on
> the block would have come onto the scene regardless of any hopes of working
Firebird has a large selection of third party tools, but they all target
a single project ( now ). The period when there were different
development plans and split projects was a drain on resources.
>>Even just drafting this letter is a distraction that I could do without :(
> Really? I hope it is worth the time to discuss and debate the ideas, so that
> we can all have some confidence in moving forward. Everyone's opinion about
> the MTSC taking on more responsibility is important to have at this point.
But we need to know where we are going before we can have a productive
discussion. And if Autodesk fits into that road map then the rules change?
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc.
More information about the mapserver-users