[OSGeo-Discuss] OGC liaison memberships

[Cameron Shorter]

I'm moving this email thread from discuss at lists.osgeo.org to 
standards at lists.osgeo.org.

Adrian,
It is a good idea for OSGeo members have the opportunity to participate 
in OGC activities, and have a voice to air OSGeo opinions and concerns.

I think that we are already reasonably close to having that goal.
* OSGeo members can get access to OGC through the 5 OGC membership slots 
on offer [1].
* OGC did disseminate OSGeo's "Open Letter re Geoservices REST API".

What is missing is an opportunity to share OGC information with the 
general public, which in turn would give the general public the 
opportunity to comment and provide feedback. (This is a general OGC 
issue to address, as the OGC use "access to OGC" as a means to attract 
funded members).

Currently OSGeo doesn't have a vote at the OGC, which is something we 
might want to ask for. If we are to ask for a vote from OGC, we would 
need to be confident that we would have volunteers with sufficient time 
to review the material required to vote. Such reviewing will take quite 
a bit of time, but if we have volunteers willing to do the work, I think 
we have a good case to ask for such a vote.

With regards to developing standards, I think it valuable for OSGeo 
members to be involved in standards development, but that already 
happens. (OSGeo members take part in OGC testbeds, using OGC processes). 
I don't think it appropriate for OSGeo to develop standards outside of 
the OGC.

I suggest the way to move forward is for OSGeo to propose a process, 
which is approved at the next board meeting on 6 June, and which the 
board forwards onto OGC.

Adrian, I suggest you start by putting together such a proposal which we 
can refine, then include at [1].

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_membership

On 01/06/13 01:54, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> I agree, let's get you moving on this, so, comments inline below:
>
> On 2013-05-31 10:45 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> On the front of becoming one of the liaison members, I would appreciate
>> guidance on procedure. Do we generate a formal letter to me and the OGC
>> or do we not yet have any procedure for this? I have just now asked
>> Barbara Sherman of the OGC if she is aware of any procedure on her end.
>> I would like to get this squared away quickly and easily.
>>
> See Frank's earlier response.  Arnulf and Mike are currently managing
> this, so, usually someone like Arnulf will send an email (CCing you) to
> Barbara at OGC referring you for one of the Associate memberships.
> Arnulf can you do this for Adrian?  (with you and Mike's approval of course)
>
> Note that my Associate membership was renewed on 11 April.
>
> I feel that having someone like you championing our efforts will help me
> also to get more involved in the Standards.
>
>
>>
>> On the front of OSGeo building deeper ties with the OGC and, perhaps
>> becoming a voting member someday, I think we should move forwards on a
>> number of fronts jointly.
> Becoming a voting member would greatly help the feeling of being
> involved, and give the OSGeo foundation a stronger voice in standards
> development.
>
>> The first is clearly discussion and openness, letting Carl, the head of
>> the TC and Mark, the president of the OGC both know that this is
>> something we are seeking and towards which we plan to work.
> Agreed.
>
>> A second front might be to become more active on the Standards Front.
>> There has been some recent interest in OSGeo taking on some Standards
>> related activity, where certainly being vocal and offering productive
>> critiques could be productive. It may also prove useful to do more. For
>> example, I am planning to write up a number of format standards in the
>> next six months and so it might make sense for me to develop some of
>> them within OSGeo. The standards would require buy in from this
>> community anyhow, so perhaps developing them here would give this
>> community some more leverage in the Standards game. I'll do the bulk of
>> the work first and then get back to you all on whether they make sense
>> at OSGeo and how they could start life here. In the interim, OSGeo might
>> consider how it could host 'standards focused projects' rather than
>> 'software focused projects' or 'community focused projects'. I'm not
>> sure that requires more work than agreeing it should be allowed. It
>> could be part of 'labs' to stay informal or some other procedure might
>> be invented.
>>
> re: standards: I've also heard some back-channel talk of standards
> activity within OSGeo.  Whatever we do though, as you said earlier it's
> very important that we work closely with Carl and the OGC (we have an
> MoU signed with the OGC so that this can happen).
>
> re: projects: I feel that your passion will help us in being more open
> to projects in general.  As you've said before to me, we're part of a
> larger community and we must realize this.   (I don't have the answers
> in how we do this specifically, but, keeping this in the back of our/my
> minds is the first step I feel)
>
> -jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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