[OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] OSGeo and LocationTech

[Cameron Shorter]

Andrew,
I suggest that the next steps would be to do a gap analysis between 
OSGeo incubation processes and LT incubation processes.
This gap analysis will likely lead to:

* Merging of both OSGeo and LT processes to pick up the best points of 
each.
* Identification of the differences, followed by a process describing 
the migration path from one to the other.

Andrew, is this something you are interested to pursue, possibly in 
conjunction with the incubation committee?

On 11/09/2012 12:51 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> Cameron:
>
> There's no reason a project can't play in both LT and OSGeo spheres, and indeed proposed a motion to that effect some months ago now.
>
> However, it proved very controversial among some members of our community and I didn't feel it worth fighting at the time. Perhaps more pragmatic heads will prevail as LT gets further along.
>
> -mpg
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross at eclipse.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it has the opportunity for wider discussion.
>> Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone.
>>> Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ...
>>>
>>> On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>>> If there is a close relationship between OSGeo & LocationTech, say where there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption & contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense.
>>>>
>>>> These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's potential.
>>> Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects can be members of "OSGeo" AND "LocationTech" rather than OSGeo OR LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work?
>>>
>> Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine.
>>
>> A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo or LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of difference, LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code provenance, digging through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable licensing issues, trademark search, and such. The bill of good health that results is seen as desirable by many companies when considering reuse & investment in the project.
>>
>> Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com