[Board] [EXTERNAL] Re: About some process clarification

Wed Feb 24 22:24:06 PST 2016

Dear All, 

I’d like to suggest using ‘Add’ or ‘Adding’ instead of using ‘Claiming.’ Just like written in Wiki page, any open source project which hopes to be added to OSGeo OpenHub page spontaneously can be added through the process as Venka proposed. 

Kind regards, 

신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

> 2016. 2. 24., 오후 6:53, Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> 작성:
> 
> Hi board,
> 
> I've only been following discussions around OpenHub for a few months now. What's the whole idea of OSGeo "claiming" anything there?
> I think I remember that some projects were not too happy with the move/terminology. Maybe the motivation could be spelled out on the wiki page. It's currently not clear why we do that.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Anita
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Michael Smith <michael.smith.erdc at gmail.com <mailto:michael.smith.erdc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> ----
> Michael Smith
> 
> US Army Corps
> Remote Sensing GIS/Center
> michael.smith at usace.army.mil <mailto:michael.smith at usace.army.mil>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Board <board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>> on behalf of Venkatesh
> Raghavan <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp>>
> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:25 AM
> To: OSGeo-Board <board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:board at lists.osgeo.org>>, "tomkralidis at gmail.com <mailto:tomkralidis at gmail.com>"
> <tomkralidis at gmail.com <mailto:tomkralidis at gmail.com>>, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net <mailto:mateusz at loskot.net>>, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Board] About some process clarification
> Resent-From: Michael Smith <michael.smith at usace.army.mil <mailto:michael.smith at usace.army.mil>>
> 
> >Dear Board,
> >
> >I would like to move a motion to approve
> >
> >1) Business process on managing OSGeo Open Hub requests
> >using trac ticketing as outlined in [1]
> 
> +1
> 
> >
> >2) Managing OSGeo Service Provider updates using trac ticketing as
> >outlined in [2]
> 
> +1
> 
> >
> >I vote +1 for this motion.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Venka
> >
> >[1] BlockedBlockedhttp://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OpenHubBlocked <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OpenHubBlocked>
> >[2]
> >BlockedBlockedhttps://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Service_Provider_DirectoryBlocke <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Service_Provider_DirectoryBlocke>
> >d#Business_Processes
> >
> >On 2016/02/19 11:33, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I recently had a very fruitful interaction with Tom Kralidis
> >> regarding some items listed below that require clarification of process
> >> and decouple the from specific people/emails. This would ensure that our
> >> communications related to these items become more sustainable and
> >> transparent and traceable.
> >>
> >> a) OpenHUB OSGeo [1] admin
> >> b) OSGeo Service Provider updates [3]
> >>
> >> Regarding item a) above, issues/requests related to OSGeo Open Hub
> >> were going to mailing list or info at osgeo.org <mailto:info at osgeo.org> and maybe in some
> >> cases directly to the Managers (Mateusz Loskot and Jeff McKenna).
> >>
> >> Tom and I agreed that it would be better to have documented process on
> >> OSGeo
> >> Wiki that people could know about the option of filing a trac ticket
> >> and interact with SAC directly. Tom has kindly made a draft wiki page
> >>[2]
> >> documenting the process. So we all agree with the process described in
> >> [2],
> >> it can be adopted/approved and communicated on our website.
> >>
> >> Regarding the item b) OSGeo Service Provider updates, request for
> >>updates
> >> are currently directed to info at osgeo.org <mailto:info at osgeo.org> [see [3]). Tom has also
> >> kindly added
> >> details about the process of filing trac tickets in our Service
> >> Provider Wiki page
> >> [4]. So, if we agree to the process mentioned in [4] the same can be
> >> communicated
> >> on our website.
> >>
> >> Tom, thanks for your input and suggestions. I am also marking CC to
> >> Mateusz and
> >> Jeff as they are managing OSGeo-OpenHub [2].
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Venka
> >>
> >> [1] BlockedBlockedhttps://www.openhub.net/orgs/OSGeoBlocked <http://www.openhub.net/orgs/OSGeoBlocked>
> >> [2] BlockedBlockedhttp://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OpenHubBlocked <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OpenHubBlocked>
> >> [3] BlockedBlockedhttp://www.osgeo.org/spd_helpBlocked <http://www.osgeo.org/spd_helpBlocked>
> >> [4]
> >>
> >>BlockedBlockedhttps://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Service_Provider_DirectoryBlock <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Service_Provider_DirectoryBlock>
> >>ed#Business_Processes
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Board mailing list
> >> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> BlockedBlockedhttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/boardBlocked <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/boardBlocked>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Board mailing list
> >Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> >BlockedBlockedhttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/boardBlocked <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/boardBlocked>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160225/26fab33f/attachment.htm>