<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Carl,<br>
Thank you so much for sharing your years of wisdom on collaboration.
With your permission, I'm sharing with the OSGeo community as I feel
your advise too good not to share. (Including the bit where you slap
me around a bit.)<br>
<br>
For those who haven't met Carl yet, he has been coordinating the OGC
standards development for as long as I can remember. I've always
found him insightful, respectful, and effective at bringing strongly
opinionated people together into consensus.<br>
<br>
Thanks Carl.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/05/2015 7:12 am, Carl Reed wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJcQiLdTJK3_Z5ar70S9Nk0Y+k2HzpBoD3ax16-EBzj6vVmcwg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>All -<br>
<br>
</div>
I am writing as a long time GIS developer, business
executive, and more recently standards professional. I am
writing as an individual and not as an ex OGC employee. Feel
free to share this email if you wish. <br>
<br>
</div>
I am providing the following as guidance. I have been
following the LIDAR standards discussion for some time,
including the development and release of the "open letter".<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Martin, in a recent email you used the word "demand", to
whit: " . . . please read the demands of the Open Letter more
carefully". Demands, whether implicit or explicit, do not work
in the world of standards development. They create barriers to
collaboration, discussion, and consensus. Discussion and
consensus are at the core of any standards work. I just
finished a book chapter on consensus in the OGC. In that
chapter I stated,
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.45pt"><font
size="2"><span
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><i><font
color="black"><span style="font-style:italic"><span>Consensus
decision-making is a group decision
making process that seeks the consent of all
participants. Consensus may be defined
professionally as an acceptable resolution, one
that can be supported, even if
not the "favorite" of each individual.</span></span></font></i></span></font></p>
(Thanks Wikipedia). Another key aspect - true in the OGC,
IETF, OASIS, W3C and other SDOs, is that consensus does not
need to be unanimous. Also, as you know, reaching consensus is
hard and can take time.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>When the issue of LAS standards "fragmentation" was raised,
the resulting discussion started the consensus process. I know
the OGC quickly responded and began contacting interested
individuals to participate in an open discussion at the next
OGC TC meeting. This was planned well over a month ago and was
partly in response to OSGeo community concerns. Awareness was
raised and cross community discussions started. The OGC also
planned weeks ago to meet with ASPRS management at this week's
ASPRS meeting to discuss LAS and joint activities between
ASPRS and the OGC. Esri responded very positively to the first
posting of the open letter to the OGC tc-discuss list. Yes,
Cameron, I read your blog posting refuting the Esri response.
Too bad you saw the Esri response as a negative and not a
positive. Stirring the pot the wrong way (in my opinion).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>So, the "standards pot is boiling". Time to stop stirring!
By this I mean if you keep pushing and pressuring and
demanding, people will stop listening. Human nature. The ball
is rolling. Join the discussion in a positive way. All the key
players are engaged! But beware - you may not agree with the
end result! That can happen when a global, large community
with many stakeholders and constituents is engaged in a
dialogue for the development of a standard.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now one more point: fragmentation. Martin, you have no idea
what real fragmentation of format standards is like! Back in
the 1980s, there were dozens of format standards, such as DXF,
IGES, SAIF, VPF, SDTS, Arc Export, and on and on. I know that
the company I operated back then had a single product for
format translation that supported 21 separate standards! That
was fragmentation. Different semantics, models, some
topologically structured, some not. A real mess. This was one
of the main reasons my company joined the OGC in 1994!<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I will be participating in the OGC Point Cloud ad-hoc in
Boulder. The agenda will soon be released. Hopefully someone
from the OSGeo community familiar with LAS and with
requirements and use cases will participate!<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Warm regards<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Carl<br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Carl Reed, PhD<br>
</div>
<div>Carl Reed and Associates<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mobile: 970-402-0284<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>45 Years as a Geography and GIS
professional and still going strong!<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>