[Board] [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship

Thu Nov 26 13:08:23 PST 2015

Figured it from the original google doc, massimiliano had added a
"clarification"
on external entity - that did not match the relationship described.

--
Jody Garnett

On 26 November 2015 at 12:19, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have added NASA World Winnd as an example and I tried to collect
> clarifications from this discussion -
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
>
> Scenario 1B does not make sense to me - either:
>
> - it requires a new legal entity to be formed to hold the Geo4All advisory
> board (which would make it scenario 2).
> - The text however describes naming an officer to the OSGeo Board -
> putting it in the same situation as Scenario 1.
>
> Can I get some clarification on what is intended by Scenario 2?
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 26 November 2015 at 03:36, Arnulf Christl <
> arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear OSGeo Board,
>> if OSGeo does not manage to reactivate/reinvigorate the Education
>> Committee, then we will not have one. OSGeo is a do-ocracy, right? This
>> is how OSGeo functions. Forcing something in place just because will
>> probably not work.
>>
>> In my opinion we should let Geo4All go where it wants to go, otherwise
>> chances are high we restrict it's potential. At the same time I am
>> absolutely sure that Geo4All will continue to focus on good, solid Open
>> Source software as we promote it through OSGeo. If Geo4All were
>> something that emerged "outside" of OSGeo then I would absolutely push
>> for joining and supporting the initiative. Does this make any sense?
>>
>>
>> Geo4All Advisory Board,
>> I would like to keep the close bounds to OSGeo - simply because it is
>> the Open Source compass for geospatial Open Source and therefore the
>> natural place to go to for selecting best practice technology for
>> education.
>>
>> Wrt. to the lab name "Geo4All Partners" sounds like a good middle path.
>> I would refrain from externalizing Geo4All as a separate legal entity.
>> This will only eat up resources and divert energy from what we want to
>> achieve. Maybe at a later stage (and with too much funding coming in)
>> this may make sense, right now I do not really see the need (or funding
>> or volunteers).
>>
>> Having responsible and thoroughly "Open Source" educated people act as
>> OSGeo liaison officer totally makes sense (as suggested Venka, Helena).
>>
>> Which option does this best map to? Not sure, seems like 2 would make
>> more sense? I do believe that option 1 and 1b look like OSGeo is trying
>> to "grab a hold of" Geo4All. Instead I would like to see us "let go of
>> it" and at the same time have the confidence that it will always stick
>> with OSGeo's mission, because there is solid involvement from OSGeo
>> folks and simply because our Open Source software is the core asset for
>> the labs.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf
>>
>> On 18.11.2015 08:01, Suchith Anand wrote:
>> > Thanks Jeff, Charlie, Venka, Jeroen for your inputs and ideas. I am sure
>> > with the combined wisdom of everyone , we will find the best solution.
>> > As Charlie said we can keep promoting OSGeo and all OSGeo official
>> > projects and keep  partnership with educational (and research) efforts
>> > with other open projects (who might one day join OSGeo). We need to keep
>> > doors of collaborations open as it is key for growth.
>> >
>> > Building Bridges (the theme of FOSS4G Bonn) is very appropriate and also
>> > good point to think for next stage (10th Anniversary) of OSGeo's growth.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > Suchith
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > *From:* GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf
>> of
>> > Jeroen Ticheler [jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net]
>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:47 AM
>> > *To:* GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> > *Subject:* Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be
>> > needed: [Board] geo4all relationship
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> > I prefer option 1 as it seems to be the logical next step. However I
>> > would suggest the OSGeo board to not force a big process of change onto
>> > the geo4all committee. This transition could go step by step. Options 1B
>> > and 2 are not optimal I think.
>> > Greeting,
>> > Jeroen
>> >
>> >
>> > Op 18 nov. 2015 om 02:11 heeft Venkatesh Raghavan
>> > <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>>
>> > het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> >> I prefer  Scenario 1 as it reflects more closely to the information
>> >> presently available
>> >> on the OSGeo Website. I think Scenario 1 is less confusion as it also
>> >> clarifies the status
>> >> of former Edu Committee.
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Venka
>> >>
>> >> On 2015/11/18 6:17, Charles Schweik wrote:
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think I'd like to hear the opinions of others.
>> >>>
>> >>> I lean toward 1b and want to keep rules 'lean'. I want to promote
>> OSGeo and
>> >>> OSGeo official projects, but I also want to make sure we keep strong
>> >>> partnership with educational (and research) efforts with other
>> projects
>> >>> like NASA WorldWind.
>> >>>
>> >>> But I don't want rules around organization hinder good strong open
>> >>> geospatial science and education collaboration.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Charlie
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jeff McKenna <
>> jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Suchith,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I actually wrote option 1b, so I can tell you that this option only
>> works
>> >>>> if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees to focus on OSGeo as its
>> >>>> education committee.  This document was drafted because it seems that
>> >>>> GeoForAll, as great as the initiative is for education, may not
>> always have
>> >>>> OSGeo in their interests (as many GeoForAll members have stated
>> recently,
>> >>>> that they should not be forced to promote OSGeo, they should have a
>> >>>> choice).  Well, this document was created because OSGeo really needs
>> a
>> >>>> committee/existing initiative to always promote OSGeo.  So option1b
>> can
>> >>>> only work if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees to always promote
>> >>>> OSGeo, as its education "arm" of the foundation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So before you overwhelmingly choose option 1b, please realize that
>> this
>> >>>> would mean that GeoForAll would be responsible for always promoting
>> OSGeo.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So maybe GeoForAll needs to debate what is actually its focus, is it
>> >>>> OSGeo, or, is it in fact nothing to do with OSGeo, because it
>> promotes
>> >>>> "open" through many different tools and organizations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Personally, I want Option 1b, but at the same time, I also want
>> GeoForAll
>> >>>> to realize that the OSGeo foundation needs a
>> committee/group/initiative to
>> >>>> always be out there promoting OSGeo.  If this is a problem, then
>> Option 1b
>> >>>> unfortunately will not work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I hope this explanation helps.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -jeff
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2015-11-17 4:34 PM, Suchith Anand wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Phillip,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, if Option 1b gets more votes, then  in this scenario Geo4All
>> would
>> >>>>> be required to name an officer who would liaise with the OSGeo
>> Board (as
>> >>>>> every other OSGeo committee does). Then my suggestion is that
>> someone who
>> >>>>> is an OSGeo Board member (Venka or Helena) is nominated for this
>> role.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best wishes,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Suchith
>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>> From: Phillip Davis [pdavis at delmar.edu]
>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:02 PM
>> >>>>> To: Suchith Anand; Helena Mitasova; GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>> Subject: RE: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: [Board]
>> >>>>> geo4all relationship
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Looks like 1a provides easiest implementation path and keeps
>> GeoForAll
>> >>>>> unique identity.  Option 1b provides more autonomy for GeoForAll,
>> but the
>> >>>>> requirement for an officer is somewhat problematic, since that
>> would be
>> >>>>> more or less permanent and might entail much footwork?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My vote is 1a.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dr. Phillip Davis
>> >>>>> Director GeoAcademy (http://fossgeo.org)
>> >>>>> Professor: Del Mar College Department of Computer
>> >>>>> Science-Engineering-Advanced Technology
>> >>>>> Program Lead: Geographic Information System & Cartography -
>> Geospatial
>> >>>>> Technology Program
>> >>>>> 101 Baldwin, VB 153 | Corpus Christi, TX 78404
>> >>>>> 361.698.1476 | 361.698.1475 | 361.698.1479 fax
>> >>>>> pdavis at delmar.edu
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ALL THESE WORLDS…ARE YOURS…EXCEPT TEXAS…ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab [mailto:geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On
>> >>>>> Behalf Of Suchith Anand
>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:05 PM
>> >>>>> To: Helena Mitasova; GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be
>> needed:
>> >>>>> [Board] geo4all relationship
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks Helena. Please all AB members provide feedback and vote on
>> their
>> >>>>> choice of scenario by 30th Nov 2015.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also Regional Chairs please inform your views on  Regional chairs
>> being
>> >>>>> constituted within the OSGeo Foundation structure if there is a
>> majority
>> >>>>> vote for Scenario 1? Yes/No
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best wishes,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Suchith
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>> From: Helena Mitasova [hmitaso at ncsu.edu]
>> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM
>> >>>>> To: GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>> Cc: Suchith Anand
>> >>>>> Subject: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: [Board]
>> geo4all
>> >>>>> relationship
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Suchith,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> thanks for presenting the GeoForAll OSGeo Relationship <
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship> document to
>> >>>>> the community.
>> >>>>> I noticed that the link to the actual document was somewhat burried
>> in
>> >>>>> the forwarded email where it could be overlooked. I am resending it
>> at
>> >>>>> least for the advisory board because after discussion a decision
>> and vote
>> >>>>> on one of the options (perhaps with some revisions) will be needed.
>> >>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Helena
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Suchith Anand <
>> >>>>>> Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks Jody . I have added more details into the wiki and
>> forwarding to
>> >>>>>> Geo4All advisory Board and community.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Dear Geo4All Advisory Board and Regional chairs,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Recently there had been  discussions on the future directions for
>> >>>>>> Geo4All  .There were different opinions and hence we arranged a
>> meeting at
>> >>>>>> Como to discuss this and find a way forward. Following lot of
>> discussions
>> >>>>>> among our members in our mail lists  etc and the meeting at
>> Como[1] that
>> >>>>>> was led by Charlie Schweik ,the consensus was that OSGeo Education
>> and
>> >>>>>> Curriculum Committee and GeoForAll are the same and it is now
>> GeoForAll:
>> >>>>>> OSGeo's Education and Curriculum Effort as reflected in OSGeo
>> website at
>> >>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/education . Venka has also presented this
>> outcomes
>> >>>>>> at FOSS4G Seoul [2]. Geo4All will continue to be inclusive and
>> include all
>> >>>>>> partners that OSGeo Board have MOUs with for expanding this OSGeo'
>> Geo4All
>> >>>>>> education initiative and warmly welcome everyone who are following
>> the
>> >>>>>> principles.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Geo4All initiative was started with the key aim to build up OSGeo's
>> >>>>>> education aims by collaborating with like minded organisations and
>> it is
>> >>>>>> one of the most successful initiatives that we have undertaken.
>> OSGeo Board
>> >>>>>> has made separate MoUs with both ICA and ISPRS for expanding
>> Geo4All and
>> >>>>>> universities,SMEs, government organisations etc worldwide have
>> trusted the
>> >>>>>> MoUs that OSGeo provided and setup labs and joined the network ,
>> so it is
>> >>>>>> important we provide strong continuity and focus. MoUs have to be
>> respected
>> >>>>>> and the momentum created need to build upon with clear direction
>> and focus.
>> >>>>>> It is important that proper structures are in place and steps need
>> to be
>> >>>>>> taken to ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's
>> Education and
>> >>>>>> keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that
>> OSGeo has
>> >>>>>> MoU with. This will also make sure the efforts put in by lot of
>> volunteers
>> >>>>>> for this is build upon for the future.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Geo4All had been working hard to expand OSGeo education activities
>> >>>>>> globally .Members have been running courses,training
>> events,workshops
>> >>>>>> using OSGeo software, MOOC programs (that benefitted thousands of
>> students
>> >>>>>> globally) etc have raised OSGeo education efforts globally.
>> Geo4All members
>> >>>>>> have been actively contributing to OSGeo Curriculum development
>> effort and
>> >>>>>> will continue to expand this by having more course materials in
>> various
>> >>>>>> OSGeo software added to the OSGeo education repository for
>> everyone to make
>> >>>>>> use of for their teaching and education.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We will welcome and include all partners that OSGeo Board have
>> MOUs with
>> >>>>>> for expanding this OSGeo' Geo4All education initiative and warmly
>> welcome
>> >>>>>> everyone who are following the principles. That way the OSGeo
>> Board will be
>> >>>>>> able to keep expanding the initiative and to make MoUs with other
>> >>>>>> organisations etc as we are doing now (ICA, ISPRS) and also in
>> future .
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So steps need to be taken to ensure the smooth transition to
>> GeoForAll
>> >>>>>> as OSGeo's Education and keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and
>> other
>> >>>>>> organisations that OSGeo has MoU with. This will also make sure
>> the efforts
>> >>>>>> put in by lot of  volunteers for this is build upon for the future.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There are some steps that are outlined below and looking through
>> the
>> >>>>>> options - Scenario 1 seems to  be best option based on the Como
>> discussions
>> >>>>>> for ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education
>> and keep
>> >>>>>> collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo
>> has MoU
>> >>>>>> with.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In this case, the Geo4All Advisory Board would include
>> representatives
>> >>>>>> from our partners like ICA, ISPRS etc. Geo4All Advisory Board
>> comprises of
>> >>>>>> representatives from ICA, ISPRS, OSGeo and other organisations
>> that join in
>> >>>>>> future. As a partner in the Geo4All initiative, a Project Steering
>> >>>>>> Committee (PSC) comprising of VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and
>> Curriculum
>> >>>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of
>> Geo4All) need to
>> >>>>>> be constituted within the OSGeo Foundation. The PSC could liaise
>> with
>> >>>>>> Geo4All Advisory Board to evolve way and means to achieve mutual
>> goals and
>> >>>>>> objectives.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Charlie Schweik as VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and Curriculum
>> >>>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of
>> Geo4All)  please
>> >>>>>> let us know if you are happy to being  constituted within the OSGeo
>> >>>>>> Foundation structure?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> May i request all AB members and Regional Chairs to also send their
>> >>>>>> suggestions on this, so we can  move forward. It is important that
>> proper
>> >>>>>> structures are in place and steps need to be taken to ensure the
>> smooth
>> >>>>>> transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and keep
>> collaborating with
>> >>>>>> ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo has MoU with. This
>> will also
>> >>>>>> make sure the efforts put in by lot of  volunteers for this is
>> build upon
>> >>>>>> for the future.Please send your inputs before 30th Nov 2015
>> .Thanks.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Best wishes,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Suchith
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_EU_Como_2015_Preconference_meeting
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [2] http://www.slideshare.net/VenkateshRaghavan1/g4-a-newver2
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> From: Board [board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Jody
>> Garnett
>> >>>>>> [jody.garnett at gmail.com]
>> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:25 PM
>> >>>>>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>>> Subject: [Board] geo4all relationship
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I have added an entry to our wiki for:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Revised Education Committee mandate pending clarification of
>> GeoForAll
>> >>>>>> OSGeo Relationship with Geo4All advisory board
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Venkatesh Raghavan and Jeff McKenna are our representatives on the
>> >>>>>> GeoForAll advisory board.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thank you for taking taking on what is an important relationship
>> for our
>> >>>>>> foundation objectives.
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Jody Garnett
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 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.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
>> >>>>>> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Helena Mitasova
>> >>>>> Professor at the Department of Marine,
>> >>>>> Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences
>> >>>>> and Center for Geospatial Analytics
>> >>>>> North Carolina State University
>> >>>>> Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
>> >>>>> hmitaso at ncsu.edu
>> >>>>> http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/osgeorel/publications.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "All electronic mail messages in connection with State business
>> which are
>> >>>>> sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public
>> Records
>> >>>>> Law and may be disclosed to third parties.”
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>> >>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this email,
>> >>>>> including attachments, may be
>> >>>>> privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential as provided by law.
>> The
>> >>>>> information in this email is intended
>> >>>>> only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
>> addressed.  If
>> >>>>> you have received this
>> >>>>> communication in error, please notify the sender by replying to the
>> email
>> >>>>> message and immediately
>> >>>>> return the email, attachments, and any and all copies to the
>> sender.  If
>> >>>>> you are not the intended recipient
>> >>>>> of this email and received it in error, please be advised that you
>> may be
>> >>>>> subject to civil liability for any
>> >>>>> use of privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential information
>> contained
>> >>>>> herein.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>> >>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>> >>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>> >> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>> > GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>> >
>>
>> --
>> http://metaspatial.net
>> Spatially enabling your business.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20151126/276c60b9/attachment.htm>