[Ica-osgeo-labs] Defining criteria for REL membership
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 05:58:17 PDT 2015
Hi Charles,
Insightful feedback, yet again.
Yes, I agree that an excellent starting point for building training
material is to identify user needs, define a curriculum, and then trace
that to the training material to create.
Yes, I also agree, that collaboratively creating and maintaining
training material is a bigger challenge than we faced when starting
OSGeo-Live. Mind you, I'm also convinced that if suitably resourced, it
is a very achievable goal.
Dimitris, Helena, Venka, others,
I acknowledge your concerns about introducing bureaucracy (although what
I'm proposing is structure and process, which in my mind is slightly
different). If OSGeo Labs as it is currently set up addresses what you
are looking for, then great. It certainly has been very successful at
attracting and networking like minded Open GIS educators.
Warm regards,
Cameron
On 2/06/2015 11:18 pm, Charles Schweik wrote:
> Hi Cameron, all
>
> (VERY sorry for a long note -- not sure how else to do this)
>
> 1. Cameron - Your points are well taken as well -- and your work
> leading the Live DVD is a one of the best examples of positive example
> of global, productive collaboration. You weren't asking for this but
> you and your collaborators deserve a huge 'GREAT JOB' and I know rules
> and structure and standards drives what you've been able to do. Your
> insight is really valuable and you've got proof of concept.
>
> 2. Regarding rules for GeoForAll lab creation, we have some here [1]
> and the question is are they enough or well-defined enough. I think
> Demitris and I and others are arguing to keep them light or as
> 'frictionless' as possible, with some regular check like Helena has
> been doing (thanks Helena!).
>
> 3. Turning to your 'want to achieve more collaboratively' question, I
> think we do.
>
> The challenge is how to do this. I don't know the history of the Live
> DVD, but clearly you were able to create a vision, and find people who
> were motivated to contribute to it under the rules you crafted (this
> is an art, and you do it well).
>
> Under Suchith's leadership, we've made great progress identifying
> people/labs worldwide. Now we need to move beyond the simple listing
> of labs toward something more collaborative that moves us all forward.
> It's here that I think Eric von Hippel's [2] ideas of
> 'user-innovation' or 'user-centered need' is so important. We need to
> find things to collaborate on (educational material, research) that
> motivates people to contribute *because they need it* and it helps
> them in their own careers/work/leisure... whatever.
>
> This is why I believe the Urban Science/Cities effort led by Patrick
> Hogan and Chris Pettit is so important [2b]. On the *Research side*,
> we've identified an area that a subset of labs want to collaborate.
> It's not as clear as the Live DVD, but it is a step closer. One next
> step is to find some funding to help us begin to get more clarity as a
> community, which we are trying to do right now. My hope is that
> through this process others in the group will build on or refine our
> collaborative ideas on Smart City research and go after funds they
> have access to through their own countries, but with an eye to
> continue to move our entire group forward. This is why I like the
> 'grant sprint' idea.
>
> Suchith's offered up another research collaboration focal area --
> Agri-GIS -- which hopefully will gain some traction with some people
> from some labs.
>
> *On the Education side*, this has been a tough nut to crack, and you
> and I have had conversations about this years ago. Just my postings on
> Web-GIS has identified at least 4 efforts of educational content that
> I was not aware of.
>
> But following your Live DVD example, what we really need is to define
> a curriculum and then try and line up faculty in our network who all
> are already teaching or want to teach some of that curriculum in their
> own institutions (user-centered need). I think this is bigger than the
> Live DVD production process, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the
> accreditation discussion will help us toward such a curriculum. The
> GeoAcademy folks [5] provide one important example.
>
> Another step forward is what we've tried in the past -- first
> inventorying what people are doing. Our old OSGeo educational
> inventory with simple course metadata and links [3] generated the most
> sharing I think we have seen, and I think that is because it was easy
> to do in short time for people. *I personally believe we need to get
> the input page [4] operational again*. It's not sharing of content,
> but it is at least a place for us to store links to what people are
> doing. I've put a ticket in to get this fixed, but haven't heard
> anything.
>
> Moving forward, we need to get a repository for storage of educational
> source material that would allow people to place them there and others
> to create new derivatives. We have two options here currently -- the
> ELOGeo system that Suchith and others have implemented [6, link is not
> working..., we need to fix that], and a GitHub system that Rick Smith
> at Texas A&M has created.
>
> *My hope is that in the short time some of us will have in FOSS4G EU,
> we'll be able to make some progress on this education side
> collaboration*.
>
> My two pence. I hope I don't sound like I'm preaching! I just continue
> to puzzle over how to create deep collective-action in our community.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.geoforall.org/how_to_join/
> [2] http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/DemocInn.pdf
> [2b] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_UrbanScience_CityAnalytics
> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/educational_content
> [4] https://www.osgeo.org/node/add/edu-content
> [5] http://fossgeo.org/2015/04/10/announcing-the-new-geo-academy/
> [6]
> http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ngi/research/geospatial-science/projects/elogeo.aspx
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dimitris and Charles,
> You have a valid point, simple is good. Yes, "hoops to jump
> through" hinders a project, but structure should be introduced if
> there is substantial value gained from its introduction. Structure
> helps achieve higher collaborative goals. In the case of Open
> Source Software that includes setting up a code repository,
> developer accounts, releases, issue trackers, etc. Have a look at
> the OSGeo Incubation docs [1] if you want to see more.
>
> The REL community has successfully set up great collaborative
> communication channels. This is valuable, but there is more that
> could be achieved by introducing some structure and coordination.
> In particular, I think some structure and processes would
> significantly help to collaboratively create and maintain
> educational training material.
>
> I suspect it would also help institutions bid for funds to be
> involved.
>
> The processes should certainly be kept as simple as possible, but
> some process is required to collaborate effectively.
>
> So I ask, do educators want to try to achieve more collaboratively?
> * Maybe create training material?
> * Anything else?
>
> [1]
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
> On 2/06/2015 8:36 pm, Suchith Anand wrote:
>
> Dimitris ,
>
> Thank you for these excellent points. (And thanks Charlie for
> the interesting article reference).
>
> Yes, participation itself in a global network with excellent
> people is the biggest benifit for all (those active and those
> not that active). We need to find mechanisms to encourage and
> help those not that active to be more involved and active.
>
> I also agree that the very simple reporting suggested is just
> for understanding the bigger picture of the community and
> encourage more collaboration opportunities but not to be used
> as a criterion to continue someone's participation ( in fact,
> we can use this opportunity to help those who need more
> support). Cameron and others who have great experience with
> success of OSGeo Live can give us more ideas to help us.
>
> Suchith
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> [ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of
> Charles Schweik [cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu
> <mailto:cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:12 AM
> To: Dimitris Kotzinos
> Cc: ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] Defining criteria for REL membership
>
> +1
>
> One of my favorite quotes by open source advocate Eric Raymond
> is below, and relevant:
>
> '... the number of contributors (and, at second order, the
> success of) projects is strongly and inversely correlated with
> the number of hoops each project makes a contributing user go
> through.' [1]
>
> [1] http://timreview.ca/article/645
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Dimitris Kotzinos
> <kotzino at gmail.com
> <mailto:kotzino at gmail.com><mailto:kotzino at gmail.com
> <mailto:kotzino at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I followed the exchange of e-mails on "advancing" the
> requirements for
> participating in the GeoForAll, beyond just checking for
> inactivity.
> I think that we should try to keep things simple; actually I
> think that
> one of the points of the unprecedented success and growth the
> network
> has seen, is based on the fact that things have been kept
> simple and not
> very demanding in terms of time. I think the important point
> is to keep
> people interested and involved. The many good people that already
> participate and are active guarantee the growth of the network. If
> someone is not very active in my view should be encouraged and
> helped
> (as Suchith suggested) and not be thrown out or e.g. in
> incubation. We
> have to consider also how valuable such participation is for
> universities from developing countries, both in terms of best
> practices
> and materials.
> For me the main benefit of participation, is ... participation
> itself in
> a global network with excellent people submitting proposals
> like the
> ones by Charlie or Maria and while as usual few people will
> drive the
> initiatives the more that participate the better it is.
> Needless to say that some simple reporting is more than
> welcome for
> understanding the bigger picture of the community but not to
> be used as
> a criterion to continue someone's participation. In practical
> terms we
> can always poke people from time to time to understand if they
> want to
> continue being part or not as Helena did now (thanks Helena).
>
> So let's try to hit the 100 members mark!
>
> Best regards to all,
> Dimitris
>
> _______________________________________________
> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org><mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org>>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>
>
>
> --
> Charlie Schweik
>
> Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> Dept of Environmental Conservation and Center for Public
> Policy and Administration
>
> Personal website: http://people.umass.edu/cschweik
> Publications: http://works.bepress.com/charles_schweik/
>
> Author, Internet Success: A Study of Open Source Software (MIT
> Press, 2012) - see http://tinyurl.com/d3e4545
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the
> addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received
> this
> message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately
> delete it.
>
> Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained
> in this
> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed
> by the
> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
> University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> attachment may still contain software viruses which could
> damage your
> computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be
> monitored as
> permitted by UK legislation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, W
> www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-osgeo-labs
>
>
>
>
> --
> Charlie Schweik
>
> Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> Dept of Environmental Conservation and Center for Public Policy and
> Administration
>
> Personal website: http://people.umass.edu/cschweik
> Publications: http://works.bepress.com/charles_schweik/
>
> Author, Internet Success: A Study of Open Source Software (MIT Press,
> 2012) - see http://tinyurl.com/d3e4545
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/attachments/20150603/ff9c56d0/attachment.html>
More information about the ica-osgeo-labs
mailing list