[Board] [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship
Suchith Anand
Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk
Sat Nov 28 01:39:45 PST 2015
Thanks Patrick, Venka. This is exactly what we want to happen. We want to warmly welcome new projects who follow open principles in geospatial to OSGeo.
Best wishes,
Suchith
From: GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) [patrick.hogan at nasa.gov]
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 6:44 AM
To: geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship
Venka,
We would be delighted to see WorldWind included as part of the OSGEO package!
https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WebWorldWind
https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WorldWindJava
Thanks for suggesting it!
As have Suchith, Charlie and Phil, and others in various ways.
NASA has a motto, 'for the benefit of all.'
This open source software surely speaks well to that.
The past few years of the Europe Challenge have been dedicated to encouraging students to do useful ^open source^ things with it for society.
And all of that still stands there today, thanks to the generous support of that 2015 Sol Katz soul kitten, Prof Maria Antonia Brovelli.
http://eurochallenge.como.polimi.it/
-Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: GeoForAll-ab [mailto:geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Venkatesh Raghavan
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:31 AM
To: OSGeo Board; geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship
On 2015/11/27 3:04, Phillip Davis wrote:
Open source tools, like NASA WorldWind, are not supported nor developed by OSGeo, but clearly come under the banner of G4A.
I think that is the same as what I have said. Also, "NASA OPEN SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3" under which WorldWind is released is compatible with OSI-certified open source license [1].
Would be great if it could be included as a part of the OSGeo-Live package.
Best
Venka
[1] https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3
________________________________________
From: GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Venkatesh Raghavan [raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:02 PM
To: OSGeo Board; geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will
be needed: geo4all Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] relationship
Dear All,
I am traveling now and haven't had time to go through all the mails in this thread. Maybe what I say below could be a bit off-topic.
OSGeo as a foundation has been inclusive and diverse. This is evident from the presentations at our FOSS4G events of contents the our
OSGeo-Live which include several software projects that are not OSGeo projects.
I think Geo4All takes up a similar position as our FOSS4G events and OSGeo-Live to include projects that are not a part of OSGeo.
I have noticed some comments to the effect that OSGeo seems to about OSGeo "products" and I do not think that is true (as evident from our FOSS4G events and OSGeo Live package).
There has also been some talk about where do we draw a line on what we can include under the umbrella of Geo4All. I believe that Geo4All is an initiative to promote Free and Open Source Geospatial Software. So any geospatial software that requires a proprietary software or library to be installed before it can be executed can neither be a part of OSGeo nor Geo4All.
Also, any software that is not made available under a valid Open Source License can neither be a part of OSGeo nor Geo4All, I think.
Geo4All as an integral part of OSGeo (Scenario 1 and 1B) or OSGeo being one of the "partners" of OSGeo is something that the Geo4All advisory board has to decide.
OSGeo as a foundation, has a priority of supporting/promoting software that are its integral part.
OSGeo has no issues with other open source software "products" being a part of events and initiatives supported/fostered by OSGeo.
I would also like to mention that OSGeo student awards that were presented at FOSS4G-2015 are for innovative use of OSGeo "products" and as a foundation it is one of ways to promote wider use of OSGeo "products".
Does ICA or ISPRS have some in-house projects or initiatives that need to be included as a part of Geo4All initiative? Or is there some compelling reason why Geo4All needs to be an independent initiatives despite fact that the "partners" have concluded an MoU to be "equal" partners in promoting Free and Open Software, Data, Standards for Geospatial Education?
As I have mentioned before, Scenario 1 reflects what is presently shown in the OSGeo and Geo4All websites. Scenario 1B is a variant and only does away with the OSGeo Edu Committee. And my preference would be for either 1 or 1B over Scenario 2.
Best
Venka
[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
On 2015/11/27 0:05, Sanghee Shin wrote:
+1
2015. 11. 26., 오후 8:36, Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net작성:
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_Relationshipdocument to the community.
I noticed that the link to the actual document was somewhat
buried 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.ukwrote:
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
built 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 on what is an important
relationship for our foundation objectives.
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
GeoForAll-ab mailing list
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.
More information about the Board
mailing list