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

[Gary Lang]

This is what we said we'd limit ourselves to in the past, and I'm in
agreement. 

OGC does a good job, and is well-funded to do it, would be my counsel.
Reference implementations on open source code bases is something we can
do well.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Holmes [mailto:cholmes at openplans.org]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Jo Walsh
Cc: Frank Warmerdam (External); OSGeo-Board
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Board] Re: [OSGeo-info] press question



Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear head cheese, and fellow more subsidiary cheeses,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:00:06PM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Actually, I'd rather you didn't quote that.  I used the word "we" 
>> several times for stuff that isn't decided at all.  For instance, I 
>> wrote "we don't want to take on a "standards process" as a part of
our mission."
>> but that isn't really firmly established.  You may quote me on the
>> following:
> 
> 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. 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! :)

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.

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'...

Chris

> 
> cheers,
> 
> 
> jo
>> """
>> This is not well understood internally yet.  On the one hand, I don't

>> want to take on a "standards process" as a part of our mission.  I am

>> generally pleased to have OGC, ISO, IETF, etc take on that role which
is a hard one.
>> On the other hand, we have lots of folks on different projects 
>> interested in establishing some defacto common approaches, which in 
>> some cases might later be taken to a formal standards organization.
>>
>> Whether we formalize this in any way is still open to debate.  There 
>> are those that would like to see OSGeo as a home for lightweight 
>> standards like GeoRSS and tile spec standards.
>> """
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For 
> additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:1003,45467288220211194215290!
> 

--
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org