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

[Gary Lang]

I think it's a good idea. 

I'd like to invite Dave to come to one of our meetings to discuss this.


Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Warmerdam (External) 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 4:54 PM
To: Chris Holmes
Cc: Jo Walsh; OSGeo-Board
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Board] Re: [OSGeo-info] press question

> 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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org For additional
commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org