[osgeo4w-dev] [Board] Writing up OSGeo priorities

Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at pobox.com
Fri Mar 1 16:16:47 PST 2013

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 02/03/13 03:38, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Il 01/03/2013 15:18, Jeff McKenna ha scritto:
>>  4) Supporting packaging/distribution of our projects.  The Board
>>> realizes the importance of packages such as OSGeoLive, and is willing to
>>> provide financial support where possible.
>> IMHO, osgeo4w is one of the most visible and important direct
>> contribution of osgeo
>> to the cause. Currently is badly understaffed, mostly based on voultary
>> work, and as
>> a result many packages are not up to date, which gives several problems
>> to our users.
>> My suggestion is to give this project more resources.
>>  Paolo,
> I agree that osgeo4w is an excellent initiative, and I'd love to see it
> excel. However, I don't think OSGeo throwing money at the project is the
> path to success. What is required is one of two dedicated volunteers to put
> in some hard hours to push the project forward, which in turn would attract
> a greater community.
> Related to funding priorities, please refer back to:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/**Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#**
> Support_initiatives_which_**support_themselves<http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Support_initiatives_which_support_themselves>

I will note that I think providing supportive funding for OSGeo4W
does count as supporting initiatives that support themselves.  For
me this means support efforts that have already demonstrated
community interest amoung users and contributors.  I think
OSGeo4W has done both.

I must admit I'm not absolutely certain what the best way is
to move OSGeo4W forward.  Given the right person interested
in working on the project full time (or a substantial part time)
at a "scrappy" price, I'd push for funding but I'm not sure that
such a person exists.

There are also some technical direction issues with
OSGeo4W that remain open.
 - Should we stay focused on just 32bit or add/switch to 64bit?
 - Should we do "complete refreshes" every could of
   years instead of the package by package updating
   that works well at the high level but not so well down
   in the low level packages (like GDAL).
- Do we continue to invest in the existing Cygwin derived

Anyways, I don't want to dive into great detail on the board
list, but I do think OSGeo4W is worthy of OSGeo funding
if the project had a clear plan how such funding would

Best regards,
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeo4w-dev/attachments/20130301/c795dca5/attachment.html>

More information about the osgeo4w-dev mailing list