[OSGeo-Discuss] OGC liaison memberships

Jeff McKenna jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Fri May 31 08:54:48 PDT 2013

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

> 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.


> 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)


More information about the Discuss mailing list