[OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices REST API" document [was: Would you be concerned ...]

[Adrian Custer]

On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
>> Hey Cameron, all,
>>
> ...
>>     * The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
>>       alternative way forwards.
>
> I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
> better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
> viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or
> leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
> do anyway.

Undoubtedly. This was as undiplomatic as they could have been.

If there was at least some willingness to engage with the
> broader community on interoperability within the standard (and how do
> you have interoperability if you aren't willing to budge from a
> pre-defined position anyway?).

And there would have been more participation at the OGC. Lots of folk 
were excited at the start but gave up when backwards compatibility was 
set in stone.

>
> Perhaps ESRI didn't realise their approach was going to come across with
> an "up you" attitude (or maybe they did)?  The impression I've got it
> that many people feel ESRI is treating the OGC as a "rubber stamp" body
> (which very much implies arrogant contempt) regardless of the merits of
> the proposal.

Much more likely, ESRI is trying to "push through" its standard, 
distinct from expecting the OGC to 'rubber stamp' it.

They knew from the get go they were going to face this opposition. The 
only question is who is stronger.

This is a good example of the limits of governance at the OGC. Really, a 
standard should not pass when there is concerted opposition to it. The 
process is designed to suspend when there is opposition (2 no votes), in 
an effort to build consensus. However, the ultimate decision is still a 
50% + 1 vote; probably, it should be a super-majority of some kind.


Hopefully I've got it wrong and ESRI really just botched
> their approach on this one (why do I feel this is naive wishful
> thinking?).
>
> FWIW, I don't believe having an alternate incompatible standard must of
> itself be a deal breaker, if the proposed standard genuinely represents
> a viable attempt at interoperability.  After all, the wonderful thing
> about standards is there are so many to choose from.  ;)  Lets just not
> pretend it's about genuine interoperability unless that really is the
> case.

I doubt anyone is that naive.

>
> Regards,
> Tim Bowden

cheers,
   ~adrian