[Live-demo] OSGeo-Live and WorldWind

Mon Nov 30 11:36:15 PST 2015

Thanks Daniel for picking up that the WorldWind community appears to be 
quite active, and more than my initial assessment.

Patrick,
I'm feeling frustrated that we as an OSGeo-Live community have not been 
able to entice the WorldWind community into joining us. Usually, we 
reach out to a project, they appreciate the value that OSGeo-Live can 
contribute to the project, and the project's community put in the time 
to work with OSGeo-Live processes to get involved.
I'm feeling like you are painting yourself as a rejected victim here. 
That is not the case.
If your community don't see the value in putting time in engaging with 
OSGeo-Live then that is ok. Disappointing for us, but ok. But in order 
for OSGeo-Live to work effectively with projects, we expect the projects 
to do the things that they are best qualified to do (like describe their 
projects).

If you are a looking at the logic for why we run OSGeo-Live as we do, I 
suggest read this blog post:
http://cameronshorter.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/memoirs-of-cat-herder-coordinating.html

Cheers, Cameron

On 30/11/2015 6:57 am, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> I'm just a geologist. I can't seem to appreciate the 'maturity' part of this dialogue.
>
> Apologies for that. If WorldWind is not mature enough, then so be it.
>
> There is a part of me that will dearly miss being more a part of OSGEO.
>
> Your cursory review of the forum seems to have missed several tens of posts this past month (for the Java version).
> http://forum.worldwindcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?39-Development-Help  
>
> And then there is the Web version,
> http://forum.worldwindcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?59-Web-World-Wind-Help  
>
> So both Java and JavaScript communities are very active (if you look carefully). Again, I apologize that so much of WorldWind seems inadequate for OSGEO, despite being standardized upon by ESA, by EU's 'big data'www.EarthServer.eu, by the US FAA and many by other government agencies, both in USA and beyond.
>
> -Patrick
>   (650) 604-5656 (office)
>   (650) 269-2788 (cell)

On 30/11/2015 9:26 am, Daniel Kastl wrote:
> 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
>>>

-- 
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