[OSGeo-Edu] Re: Logo

[P Kishor]

quick response fromthe road...

On 9/20/06, Charlie Schweik <cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think SVN would be better. What tools are you using to produce the
> > material? For a versioning system a text-based format (RTF? LaTeX?)
> > would be best with images stored separately from the text. Wiki is good
> > for initial ideas but I think we do need to set up a system of hosting
> > collaboratively prepared FOSS4G edu materials.
> Based on past conversations, I've been developing my stuff on a wiki
> thinking that the OSGEO edu wiki would eventually link to my materials,
> or that I would maintain my "version 1.0" of my curriculum to keep it
> stable and then provide the content to OSGEO to host under some kind of
> "new derivative works OK" license.
>
> But if there is a more preferred strategy (RTF, for example) it would be
> better for me to know now so I can start to make that conversion of the
> draft documents we have in place already. And who would host a
> Subversion application?

Personally, I woudl prefer a wiki during the development process. Svn
is great, but does require a little bit of learning, and a client that
the user is comfortable with. On the other hand, wiki is a no-brainer,
and everyone has and knows how to use a browser.

Once a "work" has reached a certain milestone (say Release Candidate 1
-- RC1) or some such status, it can be moved to svn.

The above is just my personal opinion and preference. That said, I can
work with anything that the group is comfortable with.

OSGeo offers Subversion hosting. In fact, the websites are all svn.


>
> Finally, regarding the discussion about OSGEO logo, I found the
> suggestion made by Puneet or Frank in a non-group discussion of possibly
> three tiers of "OSGEO support" (I forget how it was termed) or
> curriculum logos as a good idea.
>
> 1) OSGEO encouraged (material OSGEO recognizes are in development by
> someone)
> 2) OSGEO alpha/beta test (material now in some early stage of
> peer-review)
> 3) OSGEO official (material tested, peer-reviewed and accepted)
>
> But I am not sure where we are in that discussion.
>

I wrote up that tiered description, but that is where it stands. It is
waiting for the rest of the committee to chime in on, expand, expound,
pontificate, elucidate, masticate, and spit out.

I don't have access to the wiki (strange, but maybe it is
port/security issue from where I am, but I just can't get to the wiki
from here), but will be back in more civilized surroundings (my home)
tomorrow. More from there.

-- 
Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/
Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation https://edu.osgeo.org/