[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Jody,

By alienating the smaller OSGeo companies in our new website, I don't 
see a benefit to OSGeo at all.  Let us please all sizes of OSGeo 
companies, small and big.

Yes this is tricky, for sure, even your initial message to Jachym shows 
a lot of what it could be like, if OSGeo suddenly distinguishes size. 
Let's avoid this totally, I believe.

I am open to other suggestions to the wording as well.

Tricky!  :)

-jeff





On 2017-08-21 6:53 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I already changed it from number to the size thing.
> 
> This list was for support providers (since the website is about outreach 
> looks at projects, local chapters and service providers).
> 
> GeoForAll labs and academic / research outreach are in slightly 
> different spot (we could cross link). See 
> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/geo-for-all-labs/
> 
> I do not think public:government, NGO/non-profit would like to be 
> contacted for commercial support :) That said they can be listed in our 
> site as partners and friends. Sort order is given to groups with a 
> defined relationship with OSGeo (such as ISPRS, LocationTech,...). See 
> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/partners/
> 
> Recognizing service providers on our website in this way is a new thing 
> - I hope it works out :)
> 
> This design is full of difficult decisions thanks for contributing to 
> the discussion (and content).
> 
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:30 PM Jeff McKenna 
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Jachym,
> 
>     Yes I agree, it is a slippery slope that once we/OSGeo decide that size
>     is an important part of our organization (as you know, many other
>     organizations separate their membership by size), it opens up so many
>     other challenges.  For that reason, I spoke up here to suggest that we
>     avoid all that, by suggesting 4 options to cover that.
> 
>     Indeed my proposal does include all organizations, purposely.  OSGeo is
>     built on that, and has done an amazing job in creating a thriving
>     community.
> 
>     Thanks for listening Jachym,
> 
>     -jeff
> 
> 
> 
>     On 2017-08-21 6:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>      > Hi Jeff (all)
>      >
>      > currently, the page is listing "service providers"  - it's project
>      > oriented (as providing services to projects)
>      >
>      > your proposal is shifting it little bit to "all organisations",
>     not even
>      > service providing - but what is their releationship to the (osgeo)
>      > projects? - still, it would be fine to me
>      >
>      > I would be +1 for it, if it's does not hit to some other principle,
>      > already hardcoded in the page (e.g.
>      > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/initiatives/geo-for-all/ is partly
>      > coreving the Academic/Research topic - just an example of potencial
>      > conflict, which we could oversee)
>      >
>      > I do not know, just noting, I have no strong opinion - I want to be
>      > inclusive, all for adding another categories, but the rules and
>      > principals should be clear. Currently, how I understand it "you
>     can be
>      > listed as long as you are providing services to projects"
>      >
>      > J
>      >
>      > út 22. 8. 2017 v 0:11 odesílatel Jeff McKenna
>      > <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>     <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
>     <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>     <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>>
>      > napsal:
>      >
>      >     On 2017-08-21 5:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>      >      > For your page
>      >      >
>     http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is
>      >     that a
>      >      > single consultant (you!) or a company?
>      >      > (or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it)
>      >      >
>      >
>      >     Hi Jody,
>      >
>      >     Regarding separating the OSGeo community by size, I suggest
>     that we
>      >     avoid offending our community members, so let's stay positive
>     and make
>      >     the following change:
>      >
>      >     I recommend that we/OSGeo change the "Organization Type"
>     section to
>      >     contain the following 4 options:
>      >
>      >        1. Private
>      >        2. Academic/Research
>      >        3. Public/Government
>      >        4. Non-profit
>      >
>      >     The same 4 options should be applied to the options in the
>     "Filter"
>      >     search on the site for "Service Provider Type".
>      >
>      >     Thanks.
>      >
>      >     Jachym: you did a great job on the OpenGeoLabs page, and
>     thanks for
>      >     supporting OSGeo all of these years :)
>      >
>      >
>      >     -jeff
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Jeff McKenna
>      >     President Emeritus, OSGeo Foundation
>      > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna
>      >
>      >
>     _______________________________________________
>