[OSGeo-Discuss] "Hostile Takeover" -- what do we mean by this?

Luigi Pirelli luipir at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 00:47:55 PDT 2017


Hi Sara,

without having a deep knowledge of decision took at higher levels,
IMHO OS and particularly OSGEO worlds were already faced this kind of
"hostile takeover". Not necessarly as "takeover" but trying to do some
product protocols as OGC standards (think to lidar formats, map
servers corporate products years ago).
We are in a historical phase with GFOSS is growing more and more,
probably stressing his "almost" horizontal nature to something new...
but what is this "new" or "different"?
In QGIS world, probably due the nature of historical components
(mostly europeans), we structured the organization also to
avoid/reduce these hostile effects... is this a intercultural
difference or a real think to be aware?

tnx to rise up this aspect.

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
**************************************************************************************************


On 28 August 2017 at 18:41, Sara Safavi <sara at sarasafavi.com> wrote:
> Hi discuss,
>
> In the notification emails from CRO to new charter member nominees, the
> following is included (emphasis mine):
>
> "(Charter Members) 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."
>
> I have had more than one nominee of mine contact me asking what exactly this
> means. I agree with their concerns: this is strange language to use, is not
> reflected in our bylaws, and frankly does not fit the image I presented when
> I first contacted them asking if they would accept a nomination.
>
> It may be a language barrier or simply a misunderstanding, but can we
> clarify what is meant by using this kind of verbiage, and consider a
> re-wording?
>
> Thanks,
> Sara
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


More information about the Discuss mailing list