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

Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 00:37:31 PDT 2017 

Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign to
projects? After all, it's all about people, isn't it?

Again, maybe it is in cotradiction with some principle, I'm missing

J

út 22. 8. 2017 v 2:58 odesílatel Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius at gmail.com>
napsal:

> Note the news section is intended for news related to a specific
> service provider. Its *not* doing this now, so its unclear.
>
> Can you file an issue about the search. Agree this should work for a
> project name here.
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky
> <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > yes for me (OpenGeoLabs) it works as it is now - we are listed, we have
> > links to projects we can support, there is logo, picture, web page, once
> it
> > works, we are gonna be on the map, what could I possibly ask for more?
> (if
> > the graphics around "News" will be made more clear)
> >
> > side note: maybe adding note, that if you are searching for specifing
> > service provider related to project, you should go to project page and
> find
> > the service providers there, since search "geoserver" does not return any
> > result at this page
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > út 22. 8. 2017 v 1:24 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> > napsal:
> >>
> >> Jeff have you heard from any small companies that feel alienated? For
> many
> >> being a small company gives them a chance to offer personal service. I
> do
> >> not want to make assumptions if we can help it.
> >>
> >> My feedback was actually focused on the site design, partnership &
> friend
> >> relationships are appropriate for government and NGOs, geoforall labs
> are
> >> the appropriate relationship for education and science etc. If that is
> clear
> >> we can return to the earlier discussion - specifically about service
> >> provider size. (we should also be sure to capture this discussion on the
> >> issue tracker so it can actually inform the review of the website).
> >>
> >> Many of these decisions already took place during the earlier wireframe
> >> stage of the project (by contributors who stepped up to the marketing
> >> committee). We already went back to the drawing table on some of the key
> >> decisions during wire framing and initial website design.
> >>
> >> To clearly set expectations - we will not have a chance to revisit each
> >> and every decision due to limitations on time/budget. It is hard though,
> >> because it is much easier to care about a website when it is pretty and
> we
> >> can all see it :)
> >>
> >> My initial message to Jachym was trying to confirm that the organization
> >> size worked for opengeolabs (simply because this was already a decision
> that
> >> had been revisited once).
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM Jeff McKenna
> >> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> >      >
> >>> >      >
> >>> >     _______________________________________________
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Discuss mailing list
> >>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170822/c471d348/attachment.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list