[OSGeo-Board] questions about OGC membership

[Frank Warmerdam]

> Jo says:
> > Um, so OSGeo developers already struggling to find spare time to put
> > into projects in which there's a lot of intI think OSGeo is basically doing well as it
> > is, that one could sink a lot of time into this through wanting to
> > help and not getting far, and a 'strategic ambiguity' for a while
> > longer might not be such a bad thing...

Chris says:
> Yeah, I'd agree with that.  There's not a ton we're really hurting for.
> We have enough members involved, and if there are people that we
> really need to get involved with the processes then there seem to be ways.

Folks,

I'm pretty much in favor of a "stay the course" approach.  Lots of
us already have access to OGC documents, and I don't see a
compelling need for OSGeo to be a member of OGC.  I think
OSGeo has a stated position supporting implementation of
standards and we should continue to promote that where it
make sense - and I think that is mostly various OGC specs.

And I'm happy for working groups within OSGeo to work on
specifications that might be eventually taken to OGC if the
it seems appropriate - though I am hesitant to build much
organizational infrastructure around supporting such
specification development.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent