[Board] Please review: Open Letter asking to avoid format fragmentation in LiDAR standards
Jeff McKenna
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Wed Apr 22 13:47:48 PDT 2015
Hi Suchith,
I was not aware of Cameron's blog post, but this explains the media frenzy.
I/we do support Martin's efforts, you are right, that Open Standards are
what is important here.
I am glad that you mentioned the OSGeo Marketing Committee, it is not
active, so I hope that this spurs the media-savvy community members into
reviving the committee, we really need that help.
-jeff
On 2015-04-22 10:54 AM, Suchith Anand wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I think this was a small misunderstanding that somehow happened . In fact , Cameron's blog post with line by line refute of Esri's response statement http://cameronshorter.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/esris-claim-at-being-good-standards.html is the best one i have seen so far and it needs wider promoting to make sure this issue gets the understanding of policy makers worldwide.
>
> We should be thanking Cameron for all the efforts he put in of this. His expertise and efforts as the chair of OSGeo Marketing Committee http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Marketing_Committee is well known and we should be thanking and using his expertise (not criticising him ).
>
> Please do not doubt Cameron's hardwork on Open Standards principles. He has been doing this for many years and as you all know it was only because of his efforts that earlier OGC have withdrawn the "Geoservices REST API" candidate OGC standard that ESRI had earlier pushed. Details at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geoservices_REST_API
>
> Martin Isenburg himself informed the difficulty he had for this important development being published in any main GIS publication before. Cameron has been the main person who had worked hard to get this issue the widest attention. Still many GIS publications have not publishished this. See http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/2015-April/001468.html
>
> So please this is a humble request, let us all focus on this big issue of how we all can support Open Standards and support the efforts put in for this issue by Martin. We need to stand united for the common purpose. Thank you.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Suchith
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jeff McKenna [jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:18 PM
> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [Board] Please review: Open Letter asking to avoid format fragmentation in LiDAR standards
>
> Maybe I can spin this another way, and ask these media-passionate
> community members to dedicate time to our OSGeo Marketing Committee.
> Or, join OSGeo's @new_item group to help publish our news releases. I'd
> like that to come out of this great news release we've seen this week.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> On 2015-04-22 9:15 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>> Bart,
>>
>> I am referring to how Cameron pressured the OSGeo Board to respond to
>> this before announcing, and then seeing that he contacted media directly
>> beforehand. I/we spent good effort debating this as requested, only to
>> see it flying around the media with Cameron quotes anyway. And I didn't
>> even read a quote from Martin, that part was lost in the frenzy.
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-04-22 9:01 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> can you please clarify what you mean by "supporting a single person's
>>> agenda” ?
>>>
>>> Are you referring to Martin here?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bart
>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 13:52, Jeff McKenna
>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cameron, I personally don't appreciate supporting a single person's
>>>> agenda, and was shocked yesterday to see strong quotes by you all
>>>> over the media before the agreed time to release.
>>>>
>>>> I stand by my reaction.
>>>>
>>>> -jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-04-21 8:59 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>> In answer to your questions about my motives and why I was quoted in
>>>>> media:
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel passionately about the importance of Open Standards. I believe
>>>>> they are fundamental to interoperability, go hand-in-glove with Open
>>>>> Source.
>>>>> When I watched the heated discussing about the injustice being applied
>>>>> to LiDAR standards, as documented by Martin, I offered to help. I
>>>>> helped in the writing and reviewing an Open Letter, along with Suchith,
>>>>> Patrick and Martin. One of the things that Martin mentioned was that he
>>>>> was having difficulty getting traction in the mass media. I have
>>>>> contacts in the Australian IT media, and offered to make use of those
>>>>> to get the story out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are asking why I was quoted in the media and not you?
>>>>> 1. I contacted them.
>>>>> 2. I helped write the Open Letter [1] and worked with people who
>>>>> provided feedback. I also wrote follow up blog post [2], which makes it
>>>>> easy for an author to quote someone.
>>>>> 3. I'm local (in Australia) and local media like to quote locals.
>>>>> 4. Martin was quoted as well.
>>>>> 5. Jeff, you might not have been contacted because I pointed the
>>>>> Australian IT author to the board email list, where you might remember
>>>>> the board was slow (in media time) to respond to a request for board
>>>>> support for the Open Letter, and when you first responded, you were
>>>>> initially hesitant about supporting the Open Letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a little hurt and disappointed that the OSGeo President would find
>>>>> it "disturbing" that a local OSGeo member was quoted in local media. I
>>>>> feel like local efforts are not being supported?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/esris-claim-at-being-good-standards.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/04/2015 12:43 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> Did you give the media a heads-up on this? I'm really not
>>>>>> understanding where all this pressure is coming from (you would think
>>>>>> I would be getting requests directly, nope none). Maybe you can
>>>>>> explain how all that part has happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Martin's role in this is clear, but your own personal role in this is
>>>>>> unclear to me, maybe you can shed some light on this here for
>>>>>> everyone)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-04-21 11:38 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>> That said Cameron, I would like to know why media outlets are
>>>>>>> contacting
>>>>>>> you directly regarding this. I just read "Australian software
>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>> Cameron Shorter, the local chair of the not-for-profit OSGeo
>>>>>>> Foundation,
>>>>>>> says...". Is this because you are blogging about this issue? This
>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>> of it all is a little disturbing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 9:37 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you Jeff.
>>>>>>>> I'm hopeful other board members will also express their opinions and
>>>>>>>> vote on the motion as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers Cameron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/04/2015 9:32 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ok my last message on this; on doing some more thinking, it is as
>>>>>>>>> Cameron said too late to change how the letter is written. So it
>>>>>>>>> tackles Esri, OGC, and ASPRS head-on (I guess this is why myself
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> others were voted onto the OSGeo Board). I can see Martin's face
>>>>>>>>> looking at me and hear him saying with a smirk 'come on'. I am
>>>>>>>>> therefore +1, after saying all that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for speaking up so loudly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And thanks to Martin for all his thankless work. Special thanks to
>>>>>>>>> mpg for his private thoughts to the OSGeo Board today as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cameron thanks to you also, for letting me speak on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good night everyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 7:51 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I think you used the correct term, where an open letter could
>>>>>>>>>> be made
>>>>>>>>>> using that term "owner" or "developer" and avoid pointing direct
>>>>>>>>>> fingers, and then for more background information link to the
>>>>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>>>> explanation by Martin ("clone wars" blog post). As it is now the
>>>>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>>>> attacks Esri directly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess I could be the only one who feels this way, in which
>>>>>>>>>> case I
>>>>>>>>>> would not hold the letter back (I am only one person in this huge
>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>> community). So don't worry I'm not planning to hold it back.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> K I'm being quiet now ha :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 6:18 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Do other members of the board share Jeff's opinion? Please
>>>>>>>>>>> speak up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm in an awkward situation. We have 70+ OSGeo community
>>>>>>>>>>> members who
>>>>>>>>>>> have signed this Open Letter, expecting it to be delivered as we
>>>>>>>>>>> said we
>>>>>>>>>>> would.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to see the background (story) moved to another
>>>>>>>>>>> page, eg
>>>>>>>>>>> blog, we could do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff, I understand that you don’t want the letter delivered
>>>>>>>>>>> unless the
>>>>>>>>>>> word “Esri” removed? I’d argue to the they thing needing
>>>>>>>>>>> changing is
>>>>>>>>>>> that the owner of “Optimized LAS” publish as an open format.
>>>>>>>>>>> So the
>>>>>>>>>>> letter needs to be delivered to Esri. Is this a point you'd be
>>>>>>>>>>> prepared
>>>>>>>>>>> to accept being included in an Open Letter?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Cameron
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/04/2015 3:52 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I personally feel topics like "the story" as you mention are for
>>>>>>>>>>>> places like blogs, which I believe Martin documented very well
>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I've retweeted his post months ago). What I see here on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this wiki
>>>>>>>>>>>> page is the story re-written again. I have a difficult time
>>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>> officially supporting this story with my OSGeo Board hat on
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't add anything more (throws salt on the wound, so to
>>>>>>>>>>>> speak).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to see the OSGeo Board in fact support a request
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> LiDAR standards, and leave out this unfortunate "story".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 12:35 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We did address specific comments (similar to yours) during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for comment phase, before we asked for signatures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Now that we have asked for signatures (for the last week or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so), it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inappropriate of us to change the text that people have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> signed up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. I do acknowledge your concerns about directly singling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendor, and I initially tried writing the story without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, this one vendor is so central to the format
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> story that it is difficult to tell the story and be specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request without mentioning them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. I'm also mindful that the story has already been breaking on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spatial media for a while now (one of the features of open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication), and mass media is likely to break the story
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimate within 12 to 48 hours. In that timeframe, I personally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the time for a rewrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So unfortunately, for these 3 reasons, I think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inappropriate to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rewrite this Open Letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff, I think you have made your vote clear, but can you please
>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially vote +1, +0, 0, -0, -1 to these 2 proposals. Can the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the board please do so also as we need to decide whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on this story with or without OSGeo board endorsement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Cameron
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/04/2015 12:59 am, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of my own feedback to your letter (I cannot speak for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire OSGeo Board), I would prefer to remove any reference to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific company or institution (such as Esri), and focus the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the letter (as opposed to a flame war) on the needs for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LiDAR data. As this page is written now, it is not a surprise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that media outlets are drooling over this letter. But what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come out of that, other than upsetting a large geospatial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendor in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our ecosystem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I have spoken to Martin about this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> face-to-face, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a presentation he did on this exact topic at FOSS4G-Asia in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> December (I moderated his session, small world sometimes isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it); it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a frustrating situation that he was put through, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, since you are asking the OSGeo Board now, I cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attack against one organization formally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Short story: can you reword your wiki/letter to focus on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LiDAR format, and not attack one organization?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 11:28 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Bart mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * After initially being written, the letter was sent to OSGeo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list, asking for review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Suchith sent to OGC TC-Discuss list for review, and ESRI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * After ~ 1 week for review, the letter was forwarded to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OSGeo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a few others, asking for signatures (we have ~ 70
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing every day)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * As per this email thread below, I've asked OSGeo board's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially present this letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Today I've had inquiries from mass media. I've asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hold
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on breaking the story until the board gives approval to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present the letter, which will add extra weight to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't publish today, but may publish in 12 to 48 hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Media
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations have a strong desire to be the first to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publish).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now the board has had time to consider, can you please all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following 2 proposals:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request the board support an OSGeo Community developed Open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Letter aimed at protecting open LiDAR standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal 1: The OSGeo Board agree to include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement (or similar wording) into the letter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Cover Letter from the OSGeo Board =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The board of the [http://osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://osgeo.org/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source Geospatial Foundation] (OSGeo) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to the OGC, ESRI and ASPRS. The letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highlights
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns about fragmentation in LiDAR standards from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people within the OSGeo community. As always, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything the OSGeo board can do to help, then please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed: <OSGeo Board Members>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the letter has completed the signature phase,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be emailed from the OSGeo President to key people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Reichardt <mreichardt AT opengeospatial.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://opengeospatial.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://opengeospatial.org>>, OSGeo President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Danko <DDanko AT esri.com <http://esri.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://esri.com>>, ESRI's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Consultant for GIS Standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen D. DeGloria < sdd4 AT cornell.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://cornell.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://cornell.edu>>, President of the ASPRS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2015 10:50 pm, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was sent to discuss 1 week ago [1]. It has also been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OGC TC-Discuss list where Esri has even responded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-April/014137.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 14:44, Jeff McKenna
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be good Maxi, as my concern is getting community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the Board reviews such a request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has this letter been sent yet to the general OSGeo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review? (the Discuss list) I think it is great that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group reviewed it, maybe now it is ready for the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OSGeo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-04-20 6:18 AM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thare are interesting discussions running on the italian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if someone could wrap-up a short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could do it in the next days if none is available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-04-20 10:30 GMT+02:00 Jachym Cepicky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pá 17. 4. 2015 v 8:56 odesílatel Bart van den Eijnden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bartvde at osgis.nl <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>> napsal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do people still need time to comment on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call for a motion on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2015, at 13:52, Cameron Shorter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi OSGeo Board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request the board support an OSGeo Community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Letter aimed at protecting open LiDAR standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal 1: The OSGeo Board agree to include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement (or similar wording) into the letter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Cover Letter from the OSGeo Board =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The board of the [http://osgeo.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://osgeo.org/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source Geospatial Foundation] (OSGeo) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to the OGC, ESRI and ASPRS. The letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highlights
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns about fragmentation in LiDAR standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people within the OSGeo community. As always, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything the OSGeo board can do to help, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed: <OSGeo Board Members>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the letter has completed the signature phase,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be emailed from the OSGeo President to key people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Reichardt <mreichardt AT opengeospatial.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://opengeospatial.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://opengeospatial.org>>, OSGeo President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Danko <DDanko AT esri.com <http://esri.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://esri.com>>, ESRI's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Consultant for GIS Standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen D. DeGloria < sdd4 AT cornell.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://cornell.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://cornell.edu>>, President of the ASPRS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2015 12:14 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A number of us have been collaboratively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Letter asking key stakeholders to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LiDAR standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It starts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /We, the undersigned, are concerned that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interoperability between LiDAR applications,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the open "LAS" format, is being threatened by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESRI's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction and promotion of an alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Optimized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LAS"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary format. This is of concern since the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of the LAS format will lead to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interoperability between applications and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce vendor lock-in./
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could all interested please:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Review and provide feedback to this standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. If you agree with the letter, please add your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Signed" section
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LISAsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P +61 2 9009 5000, Wwww.lisasoft.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://Wwww.lisasoft.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.lisasoft.com/>, F
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +61 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9009 5099
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Board mailing list
>>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff McKenna
> MapServer Consulting and Training Services
> http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
More information about the Board
mailing list