<div>I agree with what Paul has presented here and a great question is does MapServer need a Foundation? If the Mapserver Technical Steering Committee is in place to move MapServer forward... whats the benefit of a foundation? As it is I see progress all around MapServer: the MapServer website, core development, packages from DM Solutions, Refractions, etc, the Mapserver Technical Steering Committee, a book showcasing MapServer, etc; what does a foundation bring. Especially when it is somewhat force-fed? I appreciate and respect the MapServer related work of every member that helped create the foundation... I just don't know if the foundation was created correctly. I will support the MTSC in making tough decisions IF they consult the MapServer community in an OPEN fashion via surveys (Kudos: Tyler/Howard) or another method that will work. I wont get into the naming war, as I addressed that in a more formal fashion via the MapServer surveys (good job providing a location for that input).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the foundation is for ALL open source spatial products, then don't name it the MapServer Foundation, name it something else, like: Spatial Cheetah Enterprise Foundation (j/k). If a benefit to having such a foundation is foreseen, then it has to be OPEN for me to buy-in; meaning: asking us what we think.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for reading,</div>
<div>Aaron<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/16/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Ramsey</b> <<a href="mailto:pramsey@refractions.net">pramsey@refractions.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Mapserverers:<br><br>You may have noticed that things have been relatively quiet since the<br>initial Mapserver Foundation open letter, and associated flurry of
<br>response. One of the reasons is that the folks behind the open<br>letter are a little shell shocked and trying to figure out how to<br>move forward in a way that is both inclusive and not hopelessly<br>inefficient.<br>
<br>The big question they are wrestling with is: Who can make decisions<br>on matters regarding the future of Mapserver?<br><br>It is not an easy problem, because among the questions that have to<br>be answered are:<br><br>
- Should Mapserver join a 'Foundation' at all?<br>- If so, under what terms of membership?<br>- If so, under what name?<br><br>I would put to you, the 'community at large' the proposition that<br>Mapserver already has a good decision making body that has the
<br>interests of Mapserver at heart: the Mapserver Technical Steering<br>Committee. The MTSC can make the final decisions on all of the above<br>questions quite capably providing they:<br><br>- Take the temperature of the overall community before making big
<br>decisions.<br>- Hold their discussions in an open forum so all viewpoints get a<br>hearing.<br><br>The MTSC might want to add some advisory members, so they feel that<br>their voting numbers reflect a broader community, and I think that is
<br>reasonable too, again, as long as they first put the names out for a<br>public hearing and make sure there are no substantive objections to<br>their choices.<br><br>So, I put the question to you, do you feel comfortable with the MTSC
<br>making some 'big decisions' for Mapserver over the next few months,<br>providing that they make their decisions within an open framework of<br>discussion?<br><br>For the record, the current members of the MTSC are: Steve Lime
<br>(Chair), Daniel Morissette, Frank Warmerdam, Sean Gilles, Assefa<br>Yewondwossen, Howard Butler and Perry Nacionales.<br><br>Paul<br></blockquote></div><br>