[OSGeo-Edu] "OSGeo Teach-in" event proposal

Tue Jun 24 00:16:40 EDT 2008

Another way to think of this is to have the disclaimer come from the point
of view of the author.  In which case it might read something like this:

"The authors of this tutorial believe that its content is consistent with
goal of the OSGeo foundation to create a global, open access repository of
educational material related to open source geospatial theory and
technologies. Any mistakes, misrepresentations, or inaccuracies are the
authors' alone."

This way, any author can use the OSGeo logo if they think that their work is
in line with OSGeo goals. In the same way that anyone can join OSGeo if they
think that they have something to offer. However, this statement would make
it very clear that the tutorial has been opted-in by the author, not
developed "by" the OSGeo foundation.

This also leaves room for a tutorial to have additional statements about the
level of peer review, external testing, etc. as needed.

- Dan

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:15 PM, <cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu> wrote:

> Quoting Daniel Ames <amesdani at isu.edu>:
>
> > I don't like the proposed phrase, "has not been reviewed by anyone at
> > OSGeo." Presumably Gary is "at OSGeo" if that is to be taken to mean an
> > OSGeo member (by this definition:http://www.osgeo.org/membership). So
> drop
> > that phrase and the disclaimer seems pretty good. - Dan
>
> Good point Dan... perhaps
>
> "This tutorial is part of a general effort by the OSGeo foundation to
> create a
> global, open access repository of educational material related to open
> source
> geospatial theory and technologies. However, this tutorial has not been
> FORMALLY
> PEER_REVIEWED WITHIN THE OSGEO ORGANIZATION. Any mistakes,
> misrepresentations,
> or inaccuracies are the authors' alone."
>
> But this might have legal implications that I am not aware of. Tyler?
> Others?
> Could something like this allow people to post the OSGEo logo on tutorials?
>
> FINALLY, A COMMENT ON THE PEER-REVIEW ISSUE:
>
> In the tutorials I put up, we have a section heading of "Reviewed By" which
> lists a student in my shop who did this. It might be a good social norm to
> do
> this in any tutorials we host, following the user-driven innovation
> concept:
> Let peer-review happen simply when someone uses the tutorial. Tutorial
> maintainers should try to incorporate any errors they find (or let the new
> user
> do this as a new derivative), and add have that "user-reviewer" add their
> name
> to a Review list embedded in the tutorial source?
>
> I see this as the only realistic way of undertaking peer-review. We could
> try to
> set up a formal system, but I am not confident people will have the time to
> undertake a close look at something (this relates to the idea of
> "granularity"
> Yochai Benkler talks about -- how long it takes to do a task).
>
> If others agree on all of this perhaps I should bring these ideas up for a
> vote?
> Not sure of protocol here.
>
> Cheers
> Charlie
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:20 PM, <cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting "Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)" <tmitchell at osgeo.org>:
> > >
> > > > Without digging through the whole thread about Gary's material, can
> > > > anyone summarise where we left this?
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/edu_discuss/2006-August/000175.html
> > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/edu_discuss/2006-August/000212.html
> > >
> > > Here's my blurry recollection:
> > >
> > > - Gary wanted to put an OSGeo logo on his material.
> > > - There was some concern (can't remember who was involved here) that
> > > anything
> > > with the OSGeo logo should go through some review process.
> > > - We didn't have a review process, and there may have been a question
> on
> > > the
> > > license to be used. We didn't have an agreed upon license.
> > > - Gary waited, but had to proceed, and he consequently dropped the
> request
> > > and
> > > moved forward.
> > > - It was an example of what I personally thought we didn't want to have
> > > happen.
> > > Here was a very active developer of open source geo educational content
> > > wanting
> > > to connect, and my sense was he got frustrated and just dropped it and
> > > moved on
> > > (I think Gary may be still on this list though... Gary?). I can't
> really
> > > blame
> > > him.
> > > - Up until now, our take as a group has been that we need to build a
> larger
> > > database of tutorials -- any kind at this point. So we have a statement
> at
> > > the
> > > top of the wiki saying that none have been officially reviewed or
> something
> > > like
> > > that.
> > >
> > > - So THESE QUESTIONS REMAIN
> > >
> > > A) Can people put OSGeo logos on their tutorials?
> > > B) Is there some process we need to go through to make a tutorial or
> edu
> > > material tagged "OSGeo"?
> > > C) Do we need to come up with a recommended license for content?
> > >
> > > My personal view on this is that
> > >
> > > 1) OSGeo logos on tutorials are free marketing (a good thing). One idea
> > > might be
> > > to develop some kind of statement that authors should use if they did
> use
> > > the
> > > logo that says something like: "this tutorial is part of a general
> effort
> > > by the
> > > OSGeo foundation to create a global, open access repository of
> educational
> > > material related to open source geospatial theory and technologies.
> This
> > > tutorial has not been reviewed by anyone at OSGeo. Any mistakes,
> > > misrepresentations, or inaccuracies are the authors' alone." I'm not a
> > > lawyer,
> > > so if someone on this list has a better suggestion -- go for it! Or
> Tyler
> > > or
> > > others might object for valid reasons I don't understand. But this
> seems
> > > one
> > > possible way past this impasse.
> > >
> > > 2) I think licensing should probably be left to the original author. I
> > > personally see no reason why we shouldn't allow the opportunity for
> funds
> > > to
> > > flow around educational workshops just as open source software groups
> are
> > > doing
> > > by providing services around software. So I would hope if there was
> some
> > > agreed
> > > upon license that it wouldn't stop that from happening. So there might
> be
> > > some
> > > advantages to deciding on a "recommended" (but not mandated) license
> for
> > > new
> > > authors.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps and apologies if my memory confused something.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the current curriculum collection process touches this too,
> > > > as we gather pointers to material we recognise as applicable.  But
> > > > what about in cases where the curriculum content is not necessarily
> > > > "open" but funding can come back to OSGeo and relevant courses can be
> > > > delivered to the broader communit.  That's probably what it will boil
> > > > down to from an Edu committee angle.
> > > >
> > > > Please share any thoughts on the conference mailing list:
> > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > > >
> > > > Tyler
> > > >
> > > > On 23-Jun-08, at 5:00 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Edu, the discussion around creating an "OSGeo Teach-in" brand or
> > > > > OSGeo-coordinated event may be interesting to this committee. If
> > > > > you are interested please feel free to join the discussion that has
> > > > > currently been taken on by the conference committee. I suggest you
> > > > > join the conference mailing list for the time being to avoid lots
> > > > > of cross mails.
> > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
> > > > >
> > > > > It was initially discussed a little too hotly (my bad) and we are
> > > > > now trying to find a way how to decide which option works best for
> > > > > OSGeo and any interested businesses and to subsequently develop a
> > > > > policy on how to do it. Until now Edu has not been addressed
> > > > > directly but as tutorials, educational material, teaching courses,
> > > > > etc. are concerned I could imagine some interest here.
> > > > > In case you don't know what I am talking about I have compiled some
> > > > > links to explain the background:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2008-May/002444.html
> > > > >
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2008-June/000578.html
> > > > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Licenses_for_Education_Material
> > > > >
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2008-June/000580.html
> > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2008-June/002555.html
> > > > >
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2008-June/000595.html
> > > > >
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2008-June/000605.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards, Arnulf.
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > Edu_discuss mailing list
> > > > > Edu_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Edu_discuss mailing list
> > > > Edu_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Edu_discuss mailing list
> > > Edu_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel P. Ames, PhD, PE
> > Geospatial Software Lab
> > Department of Geosciences
> > Idaho State University - Idaho Falls
> > amesdani at isu.edu
> > www.hydromap.com
> >
>
>
>
>

-- 
Daniel P. Ames, PhD, PE
Geospatial Software Lab
Department of Geosciences
Idaho State University - Idaho Falls
amesdani at isu.edu
www.hydromap.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/edu_discuss/attachments/20080623/88f0fc76/attachment-0001.html