[OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections

Ravi Kumar manarajahmundry2015 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 17:50:00 PDT 2015 

+1


On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:

> Vasile,
>
> Great work pulling this together.
>
> We keep calling this discussion things like "Charter member elections"
> and addressing it during election periods.  I think that topic is
> really something else, "the nature and types of OSGeo Membership" or
> something similar.
>
> If we evaluate our existing structure [1], I think that we can regard
> "Participants" as a resounding success (there are 10,000+ involved on
> the email lists, projects, events, etc).  Just as the "Participants"
> are a success, I think that "Members" are a near complete failure [52]
> [53] in their current form, I think that "Charter Members" are working
> well enough in that they seem to be achieving their purpose of being
> people dedicated to the OSGeo Mission, electing the Board and Charter
> members, and preventing the unlikely scenario of a takeover.  Charter
> membership seems to be fraught with all sorts of additional
> connotation, confusion, differring perspectives, and debate.  Based on
> this, I think that OSGeo should further our success with
> "participants", end "membership" since it failed, and refine "Charter"
> so that is works better.
>
> What OSGeo membership and Charter membership has been unclear to many.
> Here is the explanation that I often give to people (some of whom have
> been using and contributing to OSGeo projects for 5+ years):
>
> Members simply self identify as members on the wiki.
>
> Charter members are nominated and elected.  They do what they see fit
> when they see fit to further/support the goals and mission of OSGeo.
> It has also historically been a badge of honor for contributing good
> work.
>
> What a "Charter Member" is is a matter of endless debate but the very
> practical purpose is simple: The real practical purpose of Charter
> Members is to elect the Board of Directors (and more Charter Members).
> It is to prevent hostile takeover of the organization (or the
> organization's resources) since OSGeo other than voting for the Board
> and Charter Members, is open to all who find it, figure out how to
> participate, are inclined to participate, and feel welcome.
>
> By offering to nominate you as a Charter Member what I really think is
> that:
> 1) you support the OSGeo Mission and Goals (promote Open Source GIS
> software through the world)
> 2) you are sufficiently responsible and care enough to pay minimal
> attention twice per year to vote for the OSGeo Board of Directors and
> additional Charter Members
> 3) in the extremely unlikely scenario of a hostile takeover you would
> first be aware of it and secondly vote to prevent it  <--this is
> really the sole purpose of Charter Members but it is so unlikely that
> people forget this is the purpose and it is sort of a stupid purpose
> (even if necessary).
>
>
>
> In that regard, I think that the survey should include some questions like:
>
> "OSGeo Membership should be more open/closed"  "Agree or Disagree
> 1-10; 10 is strongly agree, 1 is strongly disagree"
>
> "The primary purpose of OSGeo Membership is: a) increase participation
> in OSGeo activities b) recognize substantial OSGeo contributors c)
> give members a sense of identity and cohesion d)
> other_________________________"
>
> "Maintaining some structure to prevent takeover of the organization
> is: a) a waste of time and effort b) worthwhile even if guarding
> against an unlikely event c) other_____________"
>
> "Charter membership should be renamed to a) keep it as Charter b)
> voting members c) electors d) other _____________"
>
> "Charter membership should not be used as an honor or mark of prestige
> instead those should be addressed by a) disagree, charter membership
> is for prestige b) The Sol Katz Award c) we should have some other
> badge system d) other ________"
>
> "The number of Charter members should be a) restricted to some low
> number b) only be constrained by the number of good candidates
> available c) other _________"
>
> and other questions regarding the types and nature of OSGeo membership
>
> I do believe that Charter members play an important role guarding
> against the extremely unlikely risk of a takeover.  Other than that
> very minor role which can be achieved by several methods, I think that
> all OSGeo activities should be as open as possible to as many people
> as possible.
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> [52] http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Category:OSGeo_Member  --
> fewer than 1,000 people have bothered to register as "Members"
> [53] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_member_page_instruction
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Vasile Craciunescu
> <vasile at geo-spatial.org> wrote:
> > Dear Cameron, Arnulf, Jeff and Gert-Jan,
> >
> > Thank you for your appreciations! It was an interesting exercise of
> digital
> > archeology :)
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm waiting until tomorrow for more feedback/ideas. Then I will draft a
> > survey, I will send you the questions and ask for your opinion and
> finally,
> > if all agree, the survey will be sent to all charter members.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vasile
> >
> >
> > On 7/2/15 3:29 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Vasile for all your excellent research. Great job (and an
> >> interesting read).
> >>
> >> Are you planning to draft sample questions and tick box answers to be
> >> commented on before being put to the vote?
> >>
> >> Cheers Cameron?
> >>
> >> On 30/06/2015 10:39 pm, Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> Vasile,
> >>> thanks from here too for this very useful recap. I posted it more or
> >>> less verbatim to the discussion page of the Charter Members article in
> >>> the Wiki:
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Talk:Membership_Process
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>> on the OSGeo Wiki we currently have 605 "self categorized" OSGeo
> members:
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Category:OSGeo_Member
> >>>
> >>> This is the best we can currently do for anybody who is interested in
> >>> becoming an OSGeo member apart from subscribing to the Discuss mailing
> >>> list or being nominated as a "Charter Member" to be then elected by an
> >>> eclectic group of geospatial whizzes.
> >>>
> >>> Just to reiterate: "Charter Members" are usually those who set up the
> >>> charter of an organization:
> >>> "A charter member of an organization is an original member; that is,
> one
> >>> who became a member when the organization received its charter."
> >>> - From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
> >>>
> >>> After signing the Charter they can continue to participate actively in
> >>> the organization, go away or even die - without any of this actually
> >>> changing the Charter.
> >>>
> >>> What is OSGeo's Charter? My guess is that the section "About the Open
> >>> Source Geospatial Foundation" contains what we would consider our
> >>> Charter.
> >>>
> >>> As a legal body incorporated in Delaware, USA we needed to implement
> how
> >>> the newly founded organization should support this charter. This has
> >>> been written into the bylaws:
> >>> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
> >>>
> >>> In "ARTICLE VII Members" of our bylaws we specify how we plan to manage
> >>> membership. There is no talk of "Charter Members", just "members".
> >>> Looking at what we did almost 10 years ago it was probably the right
> >>> thing to do at that time. But it may be good for an update. My
> >>> suggestion is to change this section into regular membership and remove
> >>> the self-pollinating aspect. At the same time we could update our
> >>> "About" section into a proper Charter and then go ahead and operate as
> >>> any regular member association.
> >>>
> >>> On a personal note: I do not see any danger of a hostile take-over.
> This
> >>> was an important catch we put into the DNA of OSGeo when we founded it.
> >>> There never was a hostile take-over and I cannot really see it coming.
> >>> We are big enough to not need to fear this anymore. And we would make
> >>> OSGeo a much more open and welcoming organization if we moved away from
> >>> this somewhat strange self pollinating system.
> >>>
> >>> I am not really passionate about this and only consider it an overdue
> >>> maintenance patch to how OSGeo functions. If there is no broad interest
> >>> I am happy to drop the ball, otherwise I am as happy to help build a
> >>> more appropriate member mechanism.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Seven
> >>>
> >>> - -- Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)
> >>> OSGeo President Emeritus
> >>> OSGeo Founding and Charter Member
> >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Arnulf_Christl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30.06.2015 13:24, Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting OSGeo.nl
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Vasile: thanks for this very useful recap.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A few remarks from a relative newbie as I am ;-)
> >>>> - the name of the wiki page with the charter members is already called
> >>>> "voting members" ;-)
> >>>> - the charter member list grows and grows. Over the year only 1 person
> >>>> retired from the charter member list
> >>>> - charter membership seems to drift towards a title of honour,
> >>>> instead of a
> >>>> mechanism for proper board elections and prevent a hostile take-over
> >>>> - the voting participant rate for the board elections is low over the
> >>>> years:
> >>>> 70% - 85%. I would expect 100%!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore, I'd suggest a voting membership with:
> >>>> - a fixed number of seats (e.g. 72)
> >>>> - with a certain numbers of seats reserved for each region [51],
> >>>> (e.g. 6*6,
> >>>> and thus 36 remaining "wildcard"-seats).
> >>>> - in case of not enough candidates, or note enough votes for a
> candidate
> >>>> from a certain region, seats can remain empty
> >>>> - a 3 term (instead of a lifetime membership, re-election possible)
> >>>> - and a mechanism in which not all seats are elected every year, but
> >>>> one-third every year, and thus all seats once every three years
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my 2 eurocents,
> >>>>
> >>>> Gert-Jan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [51] http://bl.ocks.org/jsanz/raw/779f9b9954b92461fa50/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >>>> Van: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> >>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Namens Vasile Craciunescu
> >>>> Verzonden: maandag 29 juni 2015 15:08
> >>>> Aan: OSGeo Discussions
> >>>> Onderwerp: [OSGeo-Discuss] 2015 Charter Member elections
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> First of all, please accept my apologies for the delay in sending this
> >>>> message to you and, again, apologies for the length of the message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's start with some basic information about the charter member
> >>>> elections
> >>>> followed by a little bit of history. I know that many of you already
> >>>> know
> >>>> the details but the community is quite large now and I find this recap
> >>>> useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> OSGeo charter members [1] are the blood of our foundation. They are
> >>>> voted
> >>>> into this category by the other charter members. They have the right
> >>>> to vote
> >>>> in elections for other charter members and for board members. They are
> >>>> required to act in accordance with the goals and bylaws [2] of the
> >>>> Foundation and have the following responsibilities:
> >>>> (1) annually vote for OSGeo Board members; (2) annually vote for new
> >>>> OSGeo
> >>>> Charter members and (3) be aware of and protect against a hostile
> >>>> takeover
> >>>> of OSGeo.
> >>>>
> >>>> Each year new charter members are nominated (nomination process is
> >>>> open for
> >>>> the entire community, not only to the existing charter members) and
> >>>> elected
> >>>> by existing OSGeo charter members, in a process supervised by the
> >>>> board [3]
> >>>> and operated by the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) [4].
> >>>> Non-active members can retire or be removed by board decision. An
> >>>> updated
> >>>> list with all the current and past charter members is available on
> OSGEo
> >>>> website [5]. During the years the charter members selection procedure
> >>>> suffered minor and major changes as you can see bellow.
> >>>>
> >>>> OSGeo was created in early 2006 [7]. One of the main outcomes of the
> >>>> first
> >>>> OSGeo meeting (held in Chicago) [7] was a list of 21 foundation voting
> >>>> members (most of them high profile figures of the existing FOSS4G
> >>>> projects) and 5 interim directors [8]. Later that month, the first
> real
> >>>> elections started with a public nomination call [9] followed by a
> >>>> vote [10]
> >>>> and the election of new 24 voting members [11]. This was followed by
> >>>> a new
> >>>> nomination call [12] for the remaining four open seats in the board.
> >>>> After a
> >>>> tight vote, the first four candidates [13] from a list of eight [14]
> >>>> join
> >>>> the board.
> >>>>
> >>>> In June, after a f2f meeting, the new board redefined the OSGeo
> >>>> membership
> >>>> categories as we know today [15]. The voting members are now called
> >>>> "Charter
> >>>> Members" and they have the right to vote in elections for other
> charter
> >>>> members, and for board members. The other member categories
> >>>> (participant &
> >>>> members) have the right to nominate charter board members but they
> >>>> cannot
> >>>> cast votes. In March 2007, with the approach of the new charter
> members
> >>>> elections, discussion started about the ned for a CRO position, the
> >>>> number
> >>>> of new seats (and by who/how the number is decided) and the voting
> >>>> procedure
> >>>> (e.g. nomination and voting period extend, right to designate a
> >>>> proxy, the
> >>>> number of votes each charter member can submit) [16]. In June 2007 the
> >>>> nomination process [17] started with the aim to elect 15 charter
> members
> >>>> (the number was arbitrarily selected by the board). During the vote
> >>>> [18],
> >>>> each charter member was entitled to cast votes up to 15 names from the
> >>>> nomination list. It was possible to cast more than one vote to the
> same
> >>>> nominee (even all 15 votes).
> >>>>
> >>>> The same voting procedure was used for the 2008 charter member
> elections
> >>>> (including the number of seats, 15) [19]. However, the nomination list
> >>>> included 18 great names [20] and people start asking to accept all the
> >>>> names. Again, the method to pick the number of open seats was
> questioned
> >>>> again. Some people ask not to change the rules during the game and to
> >>>> select
> >>>> only 15 names. And 15th it was. Ironically, "there was a four-way tie
> >>>> for
> >>>> last place. So, the 15th person on the list was selected by a random
> >>>> process." [21].
> >>>>
> >>>> In 2009 the elections [22] followed the same rules but the number of
> >>>> seats
> >>>> was raised to 30. Though, as before, the charter members were able to
> >>>> cast
> >>>> only 15 votes. All nominated members [23] were elected as the number
> was
> >>>> bellow 30.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2010 [24], brought an important change. Due to lack of time for proper
> >>>> organization, it was decided to switch the election order and elect
> the
> >>>> charter members after the board elections. This way, the new charter
> >>>> members
> >>>> were not able to vote in the same year were elected. Also, the board
> >>>> decided, in a f2f meeting, to "add 10% of existing members each year
> >>>> - 10
> >>>> new members this year." [25]. The charter member were able to cast a
> >>>> maximum
> >>>> of 10 votes using the same rules as before. However, a number of
> voices
> >>>> noted that the list of nominee [26] had many great names and it was a
> >>>> pity
> >>>> to cut down to only 10. Some suggested that is time to make some
> >>>> changes in
> >>>> the charter member selection procedure (e.g. [27]).
> >>>>
> >>>> In 2011 [28] the elections order remain the same as in 2010. The board
> >>>> agreed on opening 20 seats (20% - [29]). Each member were able to
> cast a
> >>>> maximum of 20 votes using the same rules as before. In the end, 21
> >>>> members
> >>>> were elected (all nominees [30]) as it was a tie for the 20th slot
> >>>> and that
> >>>> still fits within the limits of 20% new charter members set by the
> >>>> board.
> >>>> The voting participating rate was 65% and some voices ask about the
> >>>> charter
> >>>> member retirement procedure.
> >>>>
> >>>> In 2012 [31] the election schedule return to the initial order: first
> >>>> charter member and then board. 20 seats were open and the board
> >>>> decided to
> >>>> accept all 22 nominations [32] as it was inline with OSGeo bylaws (is
> >>>> possible to add between 10% and one third of the existing charter
> >>>> membership).
> >>>>
> >>>> 2013 [33] elections followed the 2012 scenario. 30 seats open. 37
> >>>> nominations received [34]. The board decided to accept all the
> >>>> nominations.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014 [35], the year of the change for OSGeo charter member elections.
> >>>> First big change was the implementation of an electronic voting
> >>>> system [36]
> >>>> to replace the e-mail voting. The selection process itself was also
> >>>> revised
> >>>> from the bottom. Each charter member received an email with a
> >>>> personalized
> >>>> url to access the electronic voting system. Each charter member can
> vote
> >>>> with Yes/No/Abstain for all nominated charter members.
> >>>> Each candidate with more YES votes than NO votes, and greater than 5%
> of
> >>>> voting charter members voting YES for them, were included as new
> charter
> >>>> members. The result was that all 64 nominations [37] were accepted as
> >>>> Charter members. For the first time, the board decided to publish the
> >>>> elections results on the internet with detail numbers of
> >>>> YES/NO/ABSTAIN for
> >>>> each nominee [38]. Some concerns were raised about the low threshold
> of
> >>>> voting charter members voting YES for a nominee.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now we are getting to the current year. In 2015 [39], the elections
> will
> >>>> follow the same pattern: charter members and then board members. For
> the
> >>>> charter members elections, the OSGeo president, Jeff McKenna, propose
> to
> >>>> change the the above mentioned threshold from 5% to 50% [40]. Jeff
> did a
> >>>> simulation on the last year votes with the new threshold and
> >>>> discovered that
> >>>> 45 nominations would be accepted, versus all 64 nominations. The item
> >>>> was
> >>>> briefly introduced during the board meeting held in June [41].
> >>>> Due to the lack of time, no detailed discussions or vote follow [42].
> >>>> However, a motion on the item was introduced to the board via e-mail
> >>>> [43].
> >>>> The board was not able to reach an consensus with six votes to
> >>>> approve, one
> >>>> abstain and two to reject the motion. Some other charter members join
> >>>> the
> >>>> discussion but also with split opinions. Some are pro for a more
> >>>> exclusive
> >>>> charter membership and some are for a easy way to join. A
> >>>> consultation with
> >>>> the entire community was demanded. For more details see thread
> "[Board]
> >>>> motions from June 18 meeting - making OSGeo Charter membership more
> >>>> exclusive" on the board mailing list [44]. The thread expanded on the
> >>>> OSGeo-discuss mailing list and more concerns were raised. Like: the
> >>>> YES/NO/Abstain options should be better explained to the charter
> >>>> members;
> >>>> ask the charter members to vote on the threshold; the algorithm to
> >>>> measure
> >>>> the support for a nominee should be modified as Abstain votes are
> >>>> counted
> >>>> right now as No votes. The "YES / (NO + YES) = percentage support"
> >>>> [45] and
> >>>> "(YES-NO) / (YES+NO+ABSTAIN) = percentage support" [46] formulas were
> >>>> suggested; Arnulf suggested that "charter member" term was misused by
> >>>> OSGeo
> >>>> in the past and the foundation should embrace a regular membership
> >>>> mechanism
> >>>> and even ask for a low annual membership fee [47].
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope I did not make any mistakes and also did not left important
> >>>> information outside this recap. I so, please correct/add points.
> Charter
> >>>> member elections process is vital to OSGeo, therefore we should
> proceed
> >>>> further with great care. The time is also not on our side as we need
> >>>> to do
> >>>> this before the board elections. Until now we have the following
> >>>> options:
> >>>>
> >>>> a. Go with the unmodified 2014 selection process; b. Change the
> >>>> threshold
> >>>> percent; c. Change the algorithm that measure the support for a
> >>>> nominee; d.
> >>>> Change both b and c; e. Change the selection process from the ground
> >>>> (e.g.
> >>>> move to regular membership); e. Other options not expressed until now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please take some time, think about the existing voting system and
> if/how
> >>>> should be improved, and express your opinion here. Thanks to the
> >>>> electronic
> >>>> voting system we can put your options into a survey and all vote for
> the
> >>>> best solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Warm regards from sunny Bucharest,
> >>>> Vasile
> >>>> (your 2015 CRO)
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S. Two personal notes after I did some research about the
> >>>> selection/voting
> >>>> process in other open source software organizations: 1) all of them
> >>>> seem to
> >>>> have difficulties in finding the best solution (apparently such
> solution
> >>>> does not exist); 2) OSGeo is a very transparent organization.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> >>>> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
> >>>> [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Membership_Process
> >>>> [4] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Chief_Returning_Officer
> >>>> [5]
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/members/voting_members.html
> >>>> [6]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/open_source_geospatial_founda
> >>>>
> >>>> tion_initial_press_release.html.html
> >>>> [7]
> >>>>
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/meetings/2006_02_04/meeting.html
> >>>> [8] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Charter_Members
> >>>> [9]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000008.html
> >>>> [10]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-February/000073.html
> >>>> [11] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000132.html
> >>>> [12] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000167.html
> >>>> [13] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/000314.html
> >>>> [14]
> >>>>
> http://www.osgeo.org/content/news/news_archive/board_nom_20060314.html
> >>>> [15] http://www.osgeo.org/Membership
> >>>> [16] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-March/001558.html
> >>>> [17] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001964.html
> >>>> [18] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-June/002003.html
> >>>> [19] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008
> >>>> [20] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008
> >>>> [21] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2008-June/003789.html
> >>>> [22] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2009
> >>>> [23] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2009
> >>>> [24] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2010
> >>>> [25]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Barcelona_2010#Meeting_Minut
> >>>>
> >>>> es
> >>>> [26] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2010
> >>>> [27]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-November/008312.html
> >>>> [28] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2011
> >>>> [29]
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_Meeting_Denver_2011#Minutes
> >>>> [30] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2011
> >>>> [31] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2012
> >>>> [32] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2012
> >>>> [33] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2013
> >>>> [34] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2013
> >>>> [35] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014
> >>>> [36] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Electronic_Voting
> >>>> [37] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2014
> >>>> [38] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2014_detailed_results
> >>>> [39] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
> >>>> [40] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-May/012863.html
> >>>> [41] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2015
> >>>> [42] http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2014-09-13.log
> >>>> [43] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012912.html
> >>>> [44] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/thread.html
> >>>> [45] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012945.html
> >>>> [46] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2015-June/012946.html
> >>>> [47] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-June/014374.html
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >>>
> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAlWSjfQACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2JJACeLfsFZzEGCbQK9bCkfyn8kO5S
> >>> mnIAnjZRlV9rRG6DFrZg/PpsVDj8uJ8l
> >>> =/hLJ
> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Discuss mailing list
> >>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vasile Crăciunescu
> > geo-spatial.org: An elegant place for sharing geoKnowledge & geoData
> > http://www.geo-spatial.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/geo-spatial
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150704/6b18c3e1/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list