[VisCom] RFI editing
nedh at lightlink.com
Thu May 4 20:38:39 EDT 2006
Thanks for catching the 5:00 PM deadline and the great comments. I got this
confused with a proposal I'm working on that is due at 3:00 - sorry for the
confusion. For what it's worth, I'll be out of the office by 3:30 tomorrow.
For section 2.2.6 I didn't think it addressed the risk part all that well
but after reading it again I see your point. For these judgment calls please
do what you think is best. I think this document has potential to be quite
useful and is an opportunity to get some exposure for OSGeo within the US
Govt. which is why I'm helping out but unfortunately it's a bit outside of
my area of expertise so my thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't worry about the US citizen status.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Walsh [mailto:jo at frot.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: dev at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [VisCom] RFI editing
> dear Ned, all,
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 05:10:28PM -0400, Ned Horning wrote:
> > Thanks for the offer Jo. I would suggest that all contributions should
> > finished by 11:00 AM EDT tomorrow (Friday) so you have time to go
> > this and we can address issues that pop up and send it in before 3:00
> I have a long-needed appointment with an oral surgeon at 1:00 EDT :/
> though I am likely to be back by 2:30. I can put in some basic
> this evening, and check it out again after tomorrow morning's board
> I see the final deadline for receipt of fully fashioned 'Word 2000 or
> higher' document is 5:00 EDT.
> After a quick look; it is not obligatory to respond to the scenario
> sections; so leaving them out makes sense; but in that case, the doc
> definitely supply something more in the 'Additional Information' part.
> There are a couple of questions in the "Lifecycle" section which need
> either a response, or a rationale for why no response is being
> offered. Offering the former should be easier than the latter really ;)
> The first of these questions (about specific data themes in which cost
> savings / efficiency gains can be achieved) is perhaps out of scope
> for OSGeo, but the second one ([[ 2.2.10 What are the incentives and
> disincentives for participation in geospatial coordination and
> optimization as a collaboration partner, a customer and as a service
> provider? ]]) I think deserves a full answer.
> Ned, you comment on the talk page, 'Sections 2.2.4, 2.2.6, and 2.2.7
> have interesting text but I'm not sure it fits well with the question at
> I see the point with 2.2.4; 2.2.7 looks like it needs a little more
> detail and structuring in order to visibly answer the question.
> I wonder why you don't see the answer to 2.2.6 as fit to the question,
> though? (About the 'top three risks' in co-ordinating use of geodata).
> > I added some comments in the "discussion" section of the wiki and it
> > be good if someone (perhaps a board member?) could respond to this.
> I don't know whether it really does make a difference whether the
> contact person / representative is a US citizen or not.
> I added an item to tomorrow's board meeting agenda, re 'volunteering'
> someone to be contact person and sender/signee for this document.
> good luck!
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
More information about the Marketing