[Live-demo] OSGeo-Live and WorldWind

Sun Nov 29 14:26:36 PST 2015

Hi Cameron,

I think with the forum you misread the latest activity as the 2 posts
you mention are flagged as "sticky" and therefore remained at the top of
the form threads.
The "What's News" tab seems to list the recent activity in a more
understandable way:
http://forum.worldwindcentral.com/activity.php?s=0b55651407522df569248e8cf058c086

Best redards,
Daniel

On 30/11/15 04:36, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> OSGeo is about supporting Open Source Geospatial projects and users.
>
> Part of that help is in helping users find established projects with
> active communities.
> And we as Open Source projects should be helping our users in that
> regard. We currently do that by using OSGeo Incubation, and the
> OSGeo-Live processes. If projects haven't reached the maturity yet to
> get through these processes, then we should question whether we
> recommend these projects to new users yet. (We should help projects
> reach this level of maturity, but OSGeo is a Do-ochracy. Ie, OSGeo
> helps projects who help themselves.)
>
> My suspicion after a 5 minute look at the Worldwind developer help [1]
> is that Worldwind has not managed to build a strong community yet.
> (Email thread in October 2015, prior email thread December 2014).
> There doesn't seem to be much activity.
>
> If we within the OSGeo community were to promote WorldWind to users,
> I'd want to have more confidence in the WorldWind community. I'd
> suggest that promoting and building the WorldWind community might be
> more important to WorldWind than focusing on developing extra features.
>
> [1]
> http://forum.worldwindcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?39-Development-Help&s=58cca2198b1b179bc2b90246965500df
>
> On 30/11/2015 6:15 am, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) wrote:
>> Cameron,
>>
>> I do appreciate the spirit of the offer, thank you for that. I am
>> sorry that  OSGEO is not able to accept WorldWind as is. The websites
>> [1] [2] have all the  information needed to use this open source
>> technology, along with a well-established and sophisticated community
>> via the forum [3]. It's too bad that  OSGEO sets their bar higher
>> than simply welcoming into the fold, open source technology that is
>> already ready for prime-time use.
>> [1] http://webworldwind.org/
>> [2] http://goworldwind.org/
>> [3] http://forum.worldwindcentral.com/
>>
>> Again, thanks for your offer,
>> -Patrick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron Shorter [mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 10:54 AM
>> To: Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX); live-demo
>> Subject: Re: OSGeo-Live and WorldWind
>>
>> Hi Patrick,
>> Sorry to hear that WorldWind is not in a position to join OSGeo-Live.
>> Do you have an email list with a community of users that you could
>> share this email thread with?
>> Other projects have found volunteers from their community to write up
>> documentation and installers for OSGeo-Live.
>>
>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>
>> On 29/11/2015 4:15 am, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) wrote:
>>> Cameron,
>>>
>>> Howdy!
>>> I appreciate the guidance but simply do not have the bandwidth,
>>> resources or "the volunteers" for the additional 'grooming' required
>>> by "How_to_add_a_project_to_OSGeoLive" [2].
>>>
>>> OSGEO is welcome to use or include this technology in any way
>>> conducive to their purpose, 'live' or by proxy:
>>> https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WebWorldWind
>>> https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WorldWindJava
>>>
>>> My humble apologies for not being able to do more.
>>>
>>> WorldWind is there, free and OSGEO open for anyone to leverage as
>>> desired.
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Cameron Shorter [mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 3:37 AM
>>> To: Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)
>>> Cc: ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org; live-demo
>>> Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT -
>>> feedback and vote will be needed: geo4all relationship
>>>
>>> Hi Patrick,
>>> Great to hear your interest in including NASA Worldwind on OSGeo-Live.
>>> We have recently put out a call for new projects wishing to be
>>> included in the next release [1].
>>> If you are interested, and have volunteer(s) willing to put in the
>>> effort to integrate with OSGeo-Live, then could you please apply as
>>> per [2]
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc_Press_Release_62
>>> [2]
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc#How_to_add_a_project_to_OSGe
>>> oLive
>>>
>>> On 28/11/2015 8:39 pm, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>>> Thanks Patrick, Venka. This is exactly what we want to happen. We
>>>> want to warmly welcome new projects who follow open principles in
>>>> geospatial to OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Suchith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf
>>>> of Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) [patrick.hogan at nasa.gov]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 6:44 AM
>>>> To: geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote
>>>> will be needed: geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> Venka,
>>>>
>>>> We would be delighted to see WorldWind included as part of the
>>>> OSGEO package!
>>>> https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WebWorldWind
>>>> https://github.com/NASAWorldWind/WorldWindJava
>>>> Thanks for suggesting it!
>>>> As have Suchith, Charlie and Phil, and others in various ways.
>>>>
>>>> NASA has a motto, 'for the benefit of all.'
>>>> This open source software surely speaks well to that.
>>>> The past few years of the Europe Challenge have been dedicated to
>>>> encouraging students to do useful ^open source^ things with it for
>>>> society.
>>>> And all of that still stands there today, thanks to the generous
>>>> support of that 2015 Sol Katz soul kitten, Prof Maria Antonia
>>>> Brovelli.
>>>> http://eurochallenge.como.polimi.it/
>>>>
>>>> -Patrick
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab [mailto:geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 10:31 AM
>>>> To: OSGeo Board; geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote
>>>> will be needed: geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> On 2015/11/27 3:04, Phillip Davis wrote:
>>>> Open source tools, like NASA WorldWind, are not supported nor
>>>> developed by OSGeo, but clearly come under the banner of G4A.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is the same as what I have said. Also, "NASA OPEN
>>>> SOURCE AGREEMENT VERSION 1.3" under which WorldWind is released is
>>>> compatible with  OSI-certified open source license [1].
>>>>
>>>> Would be great if it could be included as a part of the OSGeo-Live
>>>> package.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/NASA-1.3
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Venkatesh Raghavan [raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:02 PM
>>>> To: OSGeo Board; geoforall-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote
>>>> will be needed: geo4all Re: [geoforall-ab] [Board] relationship
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I am traveling now and haven't had time to go through all the mails
>>>> in this thread. Maybe what I say below could be a bit off-topic.
>>>>
>>>> OSGeo as a foundation has been inclusive and diverse. This is evident
>>>> from the presentations at our FOSS4G events of contents the our
>>>> OSGeo-Live which include several software projects that are not
>>>> OSGeo projects.
>>>>
>>>> I think Geo4All takes up a similar position as our FOSS4G events
>>>> and OSGeo-Live to include projects that are not a part of OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed some comments to the effect that OSGeo seems to
>>>> about OSGeo "products" and I do not think that is true (as evident
>>>> from our FOSS4G events and OSGeo Live package).
>>>>
>>>> There has also been some talk about where do we draw a line on what
>>>> we can include under the umbrella of Geo4All. I believe that
>>>> Geo4All is an initiative to promote Free and Open Source Geospatial
>>>> Software. So any geospatial software that requires a proprietary
>>>> software or library to be installed before it can be executed can
>>>> neither be a part of OSGeo nor Geo4All.
>>>>
>>>> Also, any software that is not made available under a valid Open
>>>> Source License can neither be a part of OSGeo nor Geo4All, I think.
>>>>
>>>> Geo4All as an integral part of OSGeo (Scenario 1 and 1B) or OSGeo
>>>> being one of the "partners" of OSGeo is something that the Geo4All
>>>> advisory board has to decide.
>>>>
>>>> OSGeo as a foundation, has a priority of supporting/promoting
>>>> software that are its integral part.
>>>> OSGeo has no issues with other open source software "products"
>>>> being a part of events and initiatives supported/fostered by OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to mention that OSGeo student awards that were
>>>> presented at FOSS4G-2015 are for innovative use of OSGeo "products"
>>>> and as a foundation it is one of ways to promote wider use of OSGeo
>>>> "products".
>>>>
>>>> Does ICA or ISPRS have some in-house projects or initiatives that
>>>> need to be included as a part of Geo4All initiative? Or is there
>>>> some compelling reason why Geo4All needs to be an independent
>>>> initiatives despite fact that the "partners" have concluded an MoU
>>>> to be "equal" partners in promoting Free and Open Software, Data,
>>>> Standards for Geospatial Education?
>>>>
>>>> As I have mentioned before, Scenario 1 reflects what is presently
>>>> shown in the OSGeo and Geo4All websites. Scenario 1B is a variant
>>>> and only does away with the OSGeo Edu Committee. And my preference
>>>> would be for either 1 or 1B over Scenario 2.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
>>>>
>>>> On 2015/11/27 0:05, Sanghee Shin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> 2015. 11. 26., 오후 8:36, Arnulf Christl
>>>> <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net작성:
>>>>
>>>> Dear OSGeo Board,
>>>> if OSGeo does not manage to reactivate/reinvigorate the Education
>>>> Committee, then we will not have one. OSGeo is a do-ocracy, right?
>>>> This is how OSGeo functions. Forcing something in place just because
>>>> will probably not work.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion we should let Geo4All go where it wants to go,
>>>> otherwise chances are high we restrict it's potential. At the same
>>>> time I am absolutely sure that Geo4All will continue to focus on
>>>> good, solid Open Source software as we promote it through OSGeo. If
>>>> Geo4All were something that emerged "outside" of OSGeo then I would
>>>> absolutely push for joining and supporting the initiative. Does
>>>> this make any sense?
>>>>
>>>> Geo4All Advisory Board,
>>>> I would like to keep the close bounds to OSGeo - simply because it is
>>>> the Open Source compass for geospatial Open Source and therefore the
>>>> natural place to go to for selecting best practice technology for
>>>> education.
>>>>
>>>> Wrt. to the lab name "Geo4All Partners" sounds like a good middle
>>>> path.
>>>> I would refrain from externalizing Geo4All as a separate legal entity.
>>>> This will only eat up resources and divert energy from what we want
>>>> to achieve. Maybe at a later stage (and with too much funding coming
>>>> in) this may make sense, right now I do not really see the need (or
>>>> funding or volunteers).
>>>>
>>>> Having responsible and thoroughly "Open Source" educated people act
>>>> as OSGeo liaison officer totally makes sense (as suggested Venka,
>>>> Helena).
>>>>
>>>> Which option does this best map to? Not sure, seems like 2 would make
>>>> more sense? I do believe that option 1 and 1b look like OSGeo is
>>>> trying to "grab a hold of" Geo4All. Instead I would like to see us
>>>> "let go of it" and at the same time have the confidence that it will
>>>> always stick with OSGeo's mission, because there is solid involvement
>>>> from OSGeo folks and simply because our Open Source software is the
>>>> core asset for the labs.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Arnulf
>>>>
>>>> On 18.11.2015 08:01, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Jeff, Charlie, Venka, Jeroen for your inputs and ideas. I am
>>>> sure with the combined wisdom of everyone , we will find the best
>>>> solution.
>>>> As Charlie said we can keep promoting OSGeo and all OSGeo official
>>>> projects and keep  partnership with educational (and research)
>>>> efforts with other open projects (who might one day join OSGeo). We
>>>> need to keep doors of collaborations open as it is key for growth.
>>>>
>>>> Building Bridges (the theme of FOSS4G Bonn) is very appropriate and
>>>> also good point to think for next stage (10th Anniversary) of
>>>> OSGeo's growth.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Suchith
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----
>>>> *From:* GeoForAll-ab [geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org]
>>>>      on behalf of Jeroen Ticheler [jeroen.ticheler at geocat.net]
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:47 AM
>>>> *To:* GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be
>>>> needed: [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I prefer option 1 as it seems to be the logical next step. However I
>>>> would suggest the OSGeo board to not force a big process of change
>>>> onto the geo4all committee. This transition could go step by step.
>>>> Options 1B and 2 are not optimal I think.
>>>> Greeting,
>>>> Jeroen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op 18 nov. 2015 om 02:11 heeft Venkatesh Raghavan
>>>> <raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp <mailto:raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp
>>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> I prefer  Scenario 1 as it reflects more closely to the information
>>>> presently available on the OSGeo Website. I think Scenario 1 is less
>>>> confusion as it also clarifies the status of former Edu Committee.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Venka
>>>>
>>>> On 2015/11/18 6:17, Charles Schweik wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I think I'd like to hear the opinions of others.
>>>>
>>>> I lean toward 1b and want to keep rules 'lean'. I want to promote
>>>> OSGeo and OSGeo official projects, but I also want to make sure we
>>>> keep strong partnership with educational (and research) efforts with
>>>> other projects like NASA WorldWind.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't want rules around organization hinder good strong open
>>>> geospatial science and education collaboration.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jeff McKenna
>>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Suchith,
>>>>
>>>> I actually wrote option 1b, so I can tell you that this option only
>>>> works if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees to focus on OSGeo as
>>>> its education committee.  This document was drafted because it seems
>>>> that GeoForAll, as great as the initiative is for education, may not
>>>> always have OSGeo in their interests (as many GeoForAll members have
>>>> stated recently, that they should not be forced to promote OSGeo,
>>>> they should have a choice).
>>>> Well, this document was created because OSGeo really needs a
>>>> committee/existing initiative to always promote OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> So option1b can only work if the entire GeoForAll initiative agrees
>>>> to always promote OSGeo, as its education "arm" of the foundation.
>>>>
>>>> So before you overwhelmingly choose option 1b, please realize that
>>>> this would mean that GeoForAll would be responsible for always
>>>> promoting OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> So maybe GeoForAll needs to debate what is actually its focus, is it
>>>> OSGeo, or, is it in fact nothing to do with OSGeo, because it
>>>> promotes "open" through many different tools and organizations.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I want Option 1b, but at the same time, I also want
>>>> GeoForAll to realize that the OSGeo foundation needs a
>>>> committee/group/initiative to always be out there promoting OSGeo.
>>>> If this is a problem, then Option 1b unfortunately will not work.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this explanation helps.
>>>>
>>>> -jeff
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-17 4:34 PM, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phillip,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if Option 1b gets more votes, then  in this scenario Geo4All
>>>> would be required to name an officer who would liaise with the OSGeo
>>>> Board (as every other OSGeo committee does).
>>>> Then my suggestion is that someone who is an OSGeo Board member
>>>> (Venka or Helena) is nominated for this role.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Suchith
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Phillip Davis [pdavis at delmar.edu]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:02 PM
>>>> To: Suchith Anand; Helena Mitasova;
>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: RE: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed:
>>>> [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> Looks like 1a provides easiest implementation path and keeps
>>>> GeoForAll unique identity.  Option 1b provides more autonomy for
>>>> GeoForAll, but the requirement for an officer is somewhat
>>>> problematic, since that would be more or less permanent and might
>>>> entail much footwork?
>>>>
>>>> My vote is 1a.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Phillip Davis
>>>> Director GeoAcademy (http://fossgeo.org)
>>>> Professor: Del Mar College Department of Computer
>>>> Science-Engineering-Advanced Technology Program Lead:
>>>> Geographic Information System & Cartography - Geospatial Technology
>>>> Program
>>>> 101 Baldwin, VB 153 | Corpus Christi, TX 78404
>>>> 361.698.1476 | 361.698.1475 | 361.698.1479 fax pdavis at delmar.edu
>>>>
>>>> ALL THESE WORLDS…ARE YOURS…EXCEPT TEXAS…ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: GeoForAll-ab
>>>> [mailto:geoforall-ab-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Suchith
>>>> Anand
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:05 PM
>>>> To: Helena Mitasova; GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [geoforall-ab] IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be
>>>> needed:
>>>> [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Helena. Please all AB members provide feedback and vote on
>>>> their choice of scenario by 30th Nov 2015.
>>>>
>>>> Also Regional Chairs please inform your views on  Regional chairs
>>>> being constituted within the OSGeo Foundation structure if there is a
>>>> majority vote for Scenario 1? Yes/No
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Suchith
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Helena Mitasova [hmitaso at ncsu.edu]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:41 PM
>>>> To: GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Cc: Suchith Anand
>>>> Subject: IMPORTANT - feedback and vote will be needed: [Board]
>>>> geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> Suchith,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for presenting the GeoForAll OSGeo Relationship <
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationshipdocument to
>>>> the community.
>>>> I noticed that the link to the actual document was somewhat buried in
>>>> the forwarded email where it could be overlooked.
>>>> I am resending it at least for the advisory board because after
>>>> discussion a decision and vote on one of the options (perhaps with
>>>> some revisions) will be needed.
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoForAll_OSGeo_Relationship
>>>>
>>>> Helena
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Suchith Anand <
>>>> Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.ukwrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Jody . I have added more details into the wiki and forwarding
>>>> to Geo4All advisory Board and community.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Geo4All Advisory Board and Regional chairs,
>>>>
>>>> Recently there had been  discussions on the future directions for
>>>> Geo4All  .There were different opinions and hence we arranged a
>>>> meeting at Como to discuss this and find a way forward. Following lot
>>>> of discussions among our members in our mail lists  etc and the
>>>> meeting at Como[1] that was led by Charlie Schweik ,the consensus was
>>>> that OSGeo Education and Curriculum Committee and GeoForAll are the
>>>> same and it is now GeoForAll:
>>>> OSGeo's Education and Curriculum Effort as reflected in OSGeo website
>>>> at http://www.osgeo.org/education . Venka has also presented this
>>>> outcomes at FOSS4G Seoul [2]. Geo4All will continue to be inclusive
>>>> and include all partners that OSGeo Board have MOUs with for
>>>> expanding this OSGeo' Geo4All education initiative and warmly welcome
>>>> everyone who are following the principles.
>>>>
>>>> Geo4All initiative was started with the key aim to build up OSGeo's
>>>> education aims by collaborating with like minded organisations and it
>>>> is one of the most successful initiatives that we have undertaken.
>>>> OSGeo Board has made separate MoUs with both ICA and ISPRS for
>>>> expanding Geo4All and universities,SMEs, government organisations etc
>>>> worldwide have trusted the MoUs that OSGeo provided and setup labs
>>>> and joined the network , so it is important we provide strong
>>>> continuity and focus.
>>>> MoUs have to be respected and the momentum created need to build upon
>>>> with clear direction and focus.
>>>>
>>>> It is important that proper structures are in place and steps need to
>>>> be taken to ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's
>>>> Education and keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other
>>>> organisations that OSGeo has MoU with. This will also make sure the
>>>> efforts put in by lot of  volunteers for this is build upon for the
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> Geo4All had been working hard to expand OSGeo education activities
>>>> globally .Members have been running courses,training events,workshops
>>>> using OSGeo software, MOOC programs (that benefitted thousands of
>>>> students
>>>> globally) etc have raised OSGeo education efforts globally.
>>>> Geo4All members have been actively contributing to OSGeo Curriculum
>>>> development effort and will continue to expand this by having more
>>>> course materials in various OSGeo software added to the OSGeo
>>>> education repository for everyone to make use of for their teaching
>>>> and education.
>>>>
>>>> We will welcome and include all partners that OSGeo Board have MOUs
>>>> with for expanding this OSGeo' Geo4All education initiative and
>>>> warmly welcome everyone who are following the principles. That way
>>>> the OSGeo Board will be able to keep expanding the initiative and to
>>>> make MoUs with other organisations etc as we are doing now (ICA,
>>>> ISPRS) and also in future .
>>>>
>>>> So steps need to be taken to ensure the smooth transition to
>>>> GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS
>>>> and other organisations that OSGeo has MoU with.
>>>> This will also make sure the efforts put in by lot of  volunteers
>>>> for this is build upon for the future.
>>>>
>>>> There are some steps that are outlined below and looking through the
>>>> options - Scenario 1 seems to  be best option based on the Como
>>>> discussions for ensure the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's
>>>> Education and keep collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other
>>>> organisations that OSGeo has MoU with.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the Geo4All Advisory Board would include
>>>> representatives from our partners like ICA, ISPRS etc. Geo4All
>>>> Advisory Board comprises of representatives from ICA, ISPRS, OSGeo
>>>> and other organisations that join in future. As a partner in the
>>>> Geo4All initiative, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) comprising of
>>>> VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and Curriculum
>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of
>>>> Geo4All) need to be constituted within the OSGeo Foundation.
>>>> The PSC could liaise with Geo4All Advisory Board to evolve way and
>>>> means to achieve mutual goals and objectives.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Schweik as VP OSGeo Foundation (Education and Curriculum
>>>> Project) and other representatives (e.g Regional Chairs of Geo4All)
>>>> please let us know if you are happy to being constituted within the
>>>> OSGeo Foundation structure?
>>>>
>>>> May i request all AB members and Regional Chairs to also send their
>>>> suggestions on this, so we can  move forward. It is important that
>>>> proper structures are in place and steps need to be taken to ensure
>>>> the smooth transition to GeoForAll as OSGeo's Education and keep
>>>> collaborating with ICA, ISPRS and other organisations that OSGeo has
>>>> MoU with. This will also make sure the efforts put in by lot of
>>>> volunteers for this is built upon for the future.
>>>> Please send your inputs before 30th Nov 2015 .Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Suchith
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_EU_Como_2015_Preconference_meeting
>>>>
>>>> [2] http://www.slideshare.net/VenkateshRaghavan1/g4-a-newver2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Board [board-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Jody Garnett
>>>> [jody.garnett at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:25 PM
>>>> To: board at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> Subject: [Board] geo4all relationship
>>>>
>>>> I have added an entry to our wiki for:
>>>>
>>>> Revised Education Committee mandate pending clarification of
>>>> GeoForAll OSGeo Relationship with Geo4All advisory board
>>>>
>>>> Venkatesh Raghavan and Jeff McKenna are our representatives on the
>>>> GeoForAll advisory board.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for taking on what is an important relationship for our
>>>> foundation objectives.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GeoForAll-ab mailing list
>>>> GeoForAll-ab at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall-ab
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/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,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ica-osgeo-labs mailing list
>>> ica-osgeo-labs at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/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,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>
>