[OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices REST API" document [was: Would you be concerned ...]
mfidelman at meetinghouse.net
Thu May 9 20:25:23 PDT 2013
Adrian Custer wrote:
> 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.
Out of curiosity, how does this compare to the process by which KML
became an OGC standard?
> 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.
I've always found the OGC process to be rather broken. But then I'm a
big fan of the IETF approach - bottom up, "rough consensus and running
code," a progression from experimental to recommended to mandatory, but
only after a long incubation period - and don't even think of using the
word standard until there are at least 2 interoperable implementations.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the Discuss