[Board] Invitation to OSGeo to participate in LocationTech

Tue Nov 6 01:22:35 PST 2012

The aggreement looks good to me

Thanks

Jachym

Dne 31.10.2012 20:54, Peter Batty napsal(a):
> Hi all,
> 
> I had a good chat with Andrew Ross yesterday about our participation in
> LocationTech (will send more nots on that in due course). I am working
> through the paperwork for us to formally become an Associate Member of the
> Eclipse Foundation to participate in the LocationTech working group.
> 
> We need to sign the Eclipse Foundation Membership Agreement which I've
> attached. We would be associate members with no fees. Please let me know if
> you have any concerns with anything in the agreement.
> 
> Is it okay for me to sign and return this as our representative, or should
> it be signed by Daniel or Frank or Michael on behalf of OSGeo?
> 
> Cheers,
>     Peter.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>>  Board members,
>> Does anyone else have thoughts about participation with LocationTech? If
>> so, I suggest putting together in an email prior to the meeting.
>>
>> My suggestion is:
>> * OSGeo should accept this invitation to join LocationTech. I think that
>> OSGeo/LocationTech working together will be much stronger than competing
>> against each other, and that this offer is a good first step toward
>> building a positive relationship.
>>
>> * Preferably a board member should take the LocationTech position, as a
>> board position is a position of authority that has been voted on by the
>> community. (Delegation of responsibility by the board is fraught with
>> potential accusations of why one person was selected over another).
>>
>> * I'd prefer not to be the OSGeo member, as my timezone is not conducive
>> for attending EU/US meeting times. However, I would like to monitor a low
>> traffic email list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/10/12 10:36, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>> Cameron,
>>
>> I'll do my best to answer in-line.
>>
>> On 10/03/2012 06:50 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>> I'm wanting to get down to the details of what is and is not expected and
>> acceptable, because I'm sure we will need to answer community questions
>> about this in the future. (My questions are deliberately baiting in order
>> to try to flush out what might be obvious to yourself).
>>
>> Q1: What types of working groups are you expecting LocationTech to host
>> which people will wish to be involved in? Why would such groups be set up
>> to be exclusive, rather than "everyone's welcome" which is current OSGeo
>> default?
>>
>> This model is very common and one often used for standards bodies,
>> industry associations, and the like. If you look at OGC for example it'll
>> look eerily familiar.
>>
>> You use the term everyone's welcome as though implying that everyone is
>> not welcome to the working groups at LocationTech. They are indeed very
>> welcome. There are fees for some services. To illustrate my point, FOSS4G
>> charges registration. Why can't FOSS4G be "everyone's welcome"? Same
>> answer... the funds cover costs and support delivering benefits to the
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Comparing apples with apples, the open source projects at LocationTech are
>> "everyone's welcome" just as they are at OSGeo.
>>
>> As I meet new people getting involved at LocationTech I try very hard to
>> understand their needs and wants as a prelude to helping them achieve them.
>> One thing I have learned is they are diverse. Some common themes include
>> advancing the state of the art, tight integration with other enterprise IT
>> systems, creating new reference implementations of standards, and more. For
>> this reason it's not really practical for me to encapsulate so much
>> information succinctly here.
>>
>>  Q2: If a person wants to be involved in a LocationTech working group,
>> what process should they follow? Should they lobby the OSGeo board asking
>> to be assigned as an official OSGeo delegate?
>> Should OSGeo board allow anyone who asks to be given delegate status?
>> If not, what are the criteria for being allocated delegate status? More
>> importantly, under what circumstances does the board reject the request?
>> Is there a limit to the number of OSGeo representatives LocationTech will
>> accept?
>>
>>
>> OSGeo would appoint a single delegate.  Given the potential the
>> relationship with LocationTech represents, it might make sense for it to be
>> a board member. To be honest, it isn't my place to say how this person
>> should be identified.
>>
>>  Q3: What value does LocationTech hope to gain by including OSGeo as a
>> member organisation?
>>
>>
>> To foster the important idea that it really is one ecosystem. To promote
>> collaboration. To invite valuable input to shape the direction of the
>> working group & help shape the industry. etc. etc.
>>
>>  Q4: What value does OSGeo gain?
>>
>>
>> Another useful forum to relate to companies including big ones without
>> giving up autonomy. Another way to find and approach potential sponsors.
>>
>>
>> Q5: What level of effort is required, by whom, within OSGeo? Eg: A
>> requirement for a high level of involvement from the OSGeo board might not
>> be sustainable.
>>
>>
>> The work isn't too onerous I don't think. Participate on a monthly
>> conference call. Participate on the mailing list. Look for opportunities of
>> interest to OSGeo. To be honest there are multiple people that might make
>> excellent candidates to represent OSGeo already doing this informally. The
>> representative can be changed at any time.
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 7:01 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> In practice, a formal representative from OSGeo would participate in the
>> working group sessions and discussions.
>>
>> The links I provided provide a short summary of membership rights and
>> privileges. The Eclipse Foundation bylaws<http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20BYLAWS%202011_08_15%20Final.pdf>(PDF) and LocationTech
>> charter<http://www.eclipse.org/org/industry-workgroups/locationtech_charter.php>are the canonical pages with much detail.
>>
>> Any individual designated by OSGeo can be the representative. The
>> representative can be changed as needed. What you wrote sounds like any
>> number of people and that's not right.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 10/03/2012 04:17 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>> Can you please expand on what such membership would mean in practice. Is
>> there a web page explaining what such membership entails?
>>
>> Does this membership provide an avenue for any individual to participate
>> in Locationtech by noting they are part of OSGeo (as OSGeo accepts anyone
>> offering to help OSGeo)?
>>
>> On 04/10/12 04:40, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Frank.
>>
>> That's right regarding formal representation for OSGeo at LocationTech.
>>
>> And confirmed re: OSGeo wouldn't be a Steering Committee member for $0.
>>
>> For what it's worth, OSGeo could be a Steering Committee member for
>> $15K/year at any point.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 10/03/2012 02:13 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks - I have added this to our agenda for the next board meeting at:
>>
>>    http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-10-11
>>
>> I gather to make this useful we would want to have one or more
>> OSGeo representatives to join various LocationTech mailing lists
>> to participate in discussions and act as a liason?  I gather we would
>> be general members of the locationtech working group, but not
>> voting members of the steering committee, right?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Frank
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org><andrew.ross at eclipse.org>wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> On behalf of the LocationTech Steering Committee, I would like to formally
>> invite OSGeo to participate in LocationTech. LocationTech's Steering
>> Committee unanimously agreed to invite OSGeo to participate without
>> membership dues. To do so, OSGeo would sign up as an Associate member of
>> the
>> Eclipse Foundation ($0 for OSGeo) and Participating member of LocationTech
>> (also $0 due to the invitation).
>>
>> OSGeo's involvement in this working group:
>>
>> helps influence the working group's direction
>> provides a useful forum for OSGeo to engage companies
>> maintains close ties to help identify opportunities of mutual benefit &
>> collaboration
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>
>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Sourcehttp://www.lisasoft.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing listBoard at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Geospatial Solutions Manager
>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>
>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Sourcehttp://www.lisasoft.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-- 
Jachym Cepicky
Help Service - Remote Sensing s.r.o.
jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
HS-RS: jachym at hsrs.cz http://bnhelp.cz
http://les-ejk.cz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20121106/9aeea59c/attachment.sig>