[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [OSGeo-Standards] TMS and WMTS

[P Kishor]

Arnulf wrote

>> We have a MoU that gave us 6 OGC member slots for OSGeo folks and NONE of
>> them are currently in use. That sucks.

Fwiw, I am interested in stepping up to bridge between OSGeo and OGC.
I have some interest in this, particularly from the IP/legal side, but
enough to spill into other matters as well. I am fairly leery about my
ability to commit time, and then follow through because of being
generally over-committed, but it is definitely worth a serious effort
on my part.

Fill me in on what it takes?


On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Raj Singh <rsingh at opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> Nice comment Arnulf. OGC really moves via the time and effort put in by
> members. There's no reason to create a false OGC vs. OSGeo dichotomy. If
> OSGeo uses their membership slots and puts the time in to write one or two
> documents and participate on mailing lists, their impact can be as great as
> any.
>
> ---
> Raj
>
>
> On Apr 7, at 9:37 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Schuyler Erle wrote:
>>>
>>> * On  6-Apr-2010 at  6:13PM EDT, Cameron Shorter said:
>>>
>>>> Suggested improvement: The OGC should weight OGC testbed funding to
>>>> favour  Open Source implementations, as the implementations are
>>>> significantly more valuable to OGC sponsors and the greater GIS
>>>> community as the implementations are made available for free.
>>>
>>> One last point: The OGC should take the final suggestion made by
>>> Cameron very seriously.
>>>
>>> SDE
>>
>> Folks,
>> thanks for the quick feedback.
>>
>> Testbed funding is pretty irrelevant in terms of helping us solve the
>> communication issues with the OGC. The main OGC sponsors are proprietary
>> software vendors. Tell me how Open Source implementations are
>> significantly more valuable to them. :-) On top of this test bed work is
>> rather boring, badly funded and has low recognition. But maybe I just
>> miss a point here. Who wants to get testbed funding? Please ask me,
>> maybe we can work something out, there are several interested EU projects.
>>
>> Let me add a quick note form my perspective. I was in the middle of
>> trying to bridge between OGC and OSGeo around the tiling discussion.
>> This culminated in an IRC chat with Chris Schmidt during an OGC plenary
>> discussion and asking him whether the current take of the OGC's draft is
>> implementable or not. He answered 20 minutes later: "Yes, I implemented
>> it". That was cool. It just does not happen very often. But it shows
>> that we are not half as disconnected as some suggestions might make us
>> believe, except in our minds. And it always takes two sides to actually
>> *want* to connect. The want-this bit on OSGeo's side lacks. This is not
>> an opinion but my experience. Where does this frustration come from?
>>
>> I wonder whether OSGeo could also improve on something. All suggestions
>> up to now point to the OGC needing to this or that. Let me ask back:
>> What could OSGeo do to improve? It is not like the OSGeo tiling
>> standards dominate the world, do they? If we really want to contribute
>> to the standards world in a meaningful way we should take this serious
>> and not just complain.
>>
>> If you ask: Who is the OGC? Then the answer is the same as for OSGeo:
>> "Their respective members!" Now, who are the members of OGC? Believe me
>> when I say that some more FOSS folks there would make me very happy. We
>> have a MoU that gave us 6 OGC member slots for OSGeo folks and NONE of
>> them are currently in use. That sucks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>> PS:
>> Most CC'd folks are on the standards list anyway so I dropped them.
>>
>> - --
>> Arnulf Christl
>>





-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================