[Board] OGC Relationship

[Chris Holmes]

I'm +1 on all this.

I am sort of on the side of OSGeo being a lightweight, and more 
importantly _open_ place to make specs.  But I'm of the camp that we 
should _start_ specs, and then transition them to OGC.  The big problem 
with OGC is that they don't keep things open from the start, the 
advantage of being a member is you get a 'head start' on implementing 
specs, you get to see the 'private' area.  So as long as they're fine 
with us starting things in the open and putting them in to OGC process 
when appropriate I'm good with us stating that we're not 'in the 
standards business'.

Chris

Gary Lang wrote:
> "I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately
> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not
> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids
> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they might consider
> competition."
> 
>>From talking with David, I think is exactly what we would usefully
> offer, and for two reasons:
> 
> a) we're not in the standards business. It's not in our top priorities,
> last I looked
> b) exactly what you said - "avoids duplication, confusion in the
> marketplace"
> 
> If a) is true, then providing comfort and clarity around b) seems a
> no-brainer.
> 
> Gary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam
> (External)
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:03 AM
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: [Board] OGC Relationship
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'm taking the liberty of moving (at least part) of this discussion to
> the public board list.
> 
> I am favorable on the idea of a formal liason relationship with OGC
> though I don't consider it particularly critical to us or them since
> there is already extensive cross membership and cross pollination.
> 
> If we are to have a formal liason relationship, one benefit I would like
> to see is the ability for us give some developers access to working OGC
> documents, and for those developers to be involved in OGC testbeds, and
> working groups as OSGeo representatives.  I believe the OGC portal
> allows members to setup accounts for individuals to access the portal.
> We could manage a list of developers-with-access via this mechanism,
> with the understanding that we would never have more than some fixed
> number of developers (or users really) so authorized.  I think even
> doing this for 5-10 would be plenty since most OSGeo project folks with
> an interest in OGC work already have access through corporate
> memberships.
> 
> I'm not sure what we would offer OGC in return.  I suspect ultimately
> what would be most valuable to them is some sort of commitment to not
> become a a "standards development" organization.  This avoids
> duplication, confusion in the marketplace, and what they might consider
> competition.
> 
> I'd be agreeable with this, but it must be understood that
> self-organizing working groups within and between OSGeo projects are
> likely to develop specifications such as GeoRSS, or the web tile
> specification whether we encourage it or not, and I don't want to be in
> the position of discouraging
> that.  So we must be careful that such activities are not precluded.
> At
> most I think the board could offer to not develop and support our own
> standards development process - understanding that we won't supress it
> either.
> 
> The other angle might be some sort of more active involvement of OSGeo
> projects in OGC testbeds and other IE efforts.  However, it is hard for
> us to force project involvement.  It might be appropriate for the
> foundation to provide some modest supporting funding for project
> involvement in OGC testbeds and interoperability experiments.  For
> instance, providing travel funding.
> 
> Note that there are at least a few people who would like to see OSGeo
> become a sort of light weight agile standards development organization.
> I'm not keen on that, but it might be prudent to give these folks a
> chance to make their case.
> 
> Best regards,

-- 
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20070105/16270882/attachment.vcf>