[OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding implementation of standards

[Michael P. Gerlek]

> "OSGeo serves as a testbed and safe space for standards prototype
> development... in the hope that these community driven standards
> may grow into full-fledged OGC or W3C specifications..."

I might have added a "where needed or appropriate" clause to the end,
and might tweaked to read "safe space for *open* standards", but that's
just me being a fuss-budget...  Looks just fine really.


OSGeo: "We put the 'O' in..."

-mpg
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Holmes [mailto:cholmes at openplans.org] 
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:52 PM
> To: Paul Ramsey
> Cc: Michael P. Gerlek; Arnulf Christl; OSGeo-Board; 
> tmitchell at osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding 
> implementation of standards
> 
> Frank asked me to shop around an 'official position' for OSGeo to 
> release about our relation to standards, the original was:
> 
>  >> 'official position' - 'OSGeo serves as a testbed and safe 
> space for
>  >> standards prototype development', perhaps followed by 
> something like
>  >> 'in the hope that these community driven standards may 
> grow in to full
>  >> fledged OGC or W3C specifications'...
> 
> Paul, MPG, anyone else have thoughts on this?  I can do the work of 
> raising on the discuss list and making a board motion and all, though 
> I'm out all next week so it'll have to wait till I get back.
> 
> I for one am definitely happy to see this work go on in 
> OSGeo, the exact 
> type of things that were happening at EOGEO, but with 
> potentially a bit 
> wider audience.  But I want to be sure everyone knows we're 
> not looking 
> to step on toes, we're just looking to 'get things done'.
> 
> Also I think it's good that you changed 'standard' to 
> 'document' in the 
> spec Paul.
> 
> Chris
> 
> Paul Ramsey wrote:
> > Well, since Arnulf is a principle member of the OGC, I can 
> only assume 
> > they mean "are you planning on trying to marginalize us"?  
> Which we're 
> > not, of course.  Or we are, in the same way we're trying to 
> marginalize 
> > ESRI.  Basically we are trying to "get things done", using an open 
> > source methodology and creating open source products.  Those 
> > methodologies can be applied to all kinds of work products: 
> software, 
> > specifications, documentation.  And that we apply them to 
> current topics 
> > of interest should surprise noone.
> > 
> > P
> > 
> > On 3-Nov-06, at 8:57 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm kinda curious what exactly OGC means by asking this question --
> >> "whether OSGeo wants to become an active standardization 
> body."  Who
> >> from OGC is asking, and why do they even care?  Was it 
> just that they
> >> were interested because the original TMS spec was related 
> to their WMS
> >> spec, or..?
> >>
> >> (fyi, I've heard a few off-list wonderings in the past 
> couple days about
> >> our standards position & so forth, largely as a result of 
> AdenaS's blog.
> >> I'm glad we're taking the time to clarify our position.)
> >>
> >> -mpg
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Arnulf Christl [mailto:arnulf.christl at ccgis.de]
> >>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:00 AM
> >>> To: OSGeo-Board
> >>> Cc: Paul Ramsey; tmitchell at osgeo.org
> >>> Subject: [OSGeo-Board] OSGeo status regarding implementation
> >>> of standards
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I have been asked by the OGC whether OSGeo wants to become an
> >>> active standardization body. I said that OSGeo has set a high
> >>> affinity for standards in its charter but that it is
> >>> currently not actively developing them. Reading the page
> >>> "Tile Map Service Specification" speaks a different 
> language though:
> >>>
> >>> From: 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification
> >>> This specification is currently in active revision, edits are
> >>> accepted from any user at any time. Please join the mailing
> >>> list http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiling to
> >>> discuss your ideas before applying them to the draft. The
> >>> specification will first move from active revision to final
> >>> review and then finally to numbered specification, at which
> >>> point it will be locked.
> >>>
> >>> Personally I am all in favor of a fast, easy, and truly open
> >>> process that considers technical aspects and goes about it
> >>> pragmatically. But we do not have an official statement
> >>> regarding this. As long as we have not considered this we
> >>> should be careful proclaiming the above 'standard' in the way
> >>> we do because of all kings of legal implications.
> >>>
> >>> Any opinions?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Arnulf.
> >>>
> >>> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org
> >>>
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org
> > 
> > 
> > !DSPAM:1003,454b7aaa206121425493344!
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Holmes
> The Open Planning Project
> http://topp.openplans.org
>