[OSGeo-Board] Re: [OSGeo-info] press question

[Frank Warmerdam]

> Jo Walsh wrote:
>> dear head cheese, and fellow more subsidiary cheeses,
>>
>> Hm yes, this does sound like shoe-shuffling to me. It depends what you
>> define as a "standards process" and what the outcome of it is. OSGeo
>> projects are reference implementations for OGC standards and arguably
>> inform what works and doesn't, influencing the standards process a lot
>> through activities like OWS-N. 

Jo,

Absolutely.  Note we have already an official goal in support of
standards, and especially their implementation in our projects.


 >> There is a lot of weight of open
>> standards wonks in the OSGeo membership and there have been a couple
>> of yet-to-be-really fruitful, but active and participatory efforts at
>> collective lightweight "standards" for data exchange where heavier
>> standards are not addressing the problem space, or not addressing it
>> in an implementor- and user- friendly way.
>> While part of the mission is encouraging the adoption of open
>> standards that should include encouraging their implementation both
>> inside and outside OSGeo projects and that includes encouraging the
>> implementation of "homegrown" standards like, as you say, GeoRSS. I
>> think OSGeo could continue to have an increasingly valuable role to
>> play as a testbed and safe space for standards prototype development
>> and i definitely would not like to rule this out in public! :)

Agreed, I think.

Chris Holmes wrote:
> I definitely agree with this, but I'd still be hesitant to say we 'take 
> on a "standards process"' in public.   Saying we're a testbed and safe
> space for standards prototype is much different, indeed if you say 
> you're doing standards processes then people will see it as competing 
> with OGC, W3C, ect.  I like the model of incubating with us and passing 
> off to one of the 'official' standards bodies.

Right, I don't want to be seen as competing with existing standards bodies
of which I think there are already plenty.

Also, to *seriously* do standards it seems you need to put a lot of
organizational effort into it.  And certainly for the time being, I don't
want to take that on within OSGeo.

> I like that phrase a lot actually, perhaps that should be the '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'...

I'd be comfortable with this too.

Would you be willing to draft a motion for a future board meeting,
shlep it around a bit on osgeo-discuss to see if the membership is
comfortable with it and stuff like that?

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    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org