[Spanish] Re: [OSGeo-Standards] TMS and WMTS

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Schuyler Erle wrote:
> * On  6-Apr-2010 at  6:13PM EDT, Cameron Shorter said:
> 
>> Suggested improvement: The OGC should weight OGC testbed funding to  
>> favour  Open Source implementations, as the implementations are  
>> significantly more valuable to OGC sponsors and the greater GIS  
>> community as the implementations are made available for free.
> 
> One last point: The OGC should take the final suggestion made by
> Cameron very seriously.
> 
> SDE

Folks,
thanks for the quick feedback.

Testbed funding is pretty irrelevant in terms of helping us solve the
communication issues with the OGC. The main OGC sponsors are proprietary
software vendors. Tell me how Open Source implementations are
significantly more valuable to them. :-) On top of this test bed work is
rather boring, badly funded and has low recognition. But maybe I just
miss a point here. Who wants to get testbed funding? Please ask me,
maybe we can work something out, there are several interested EU projects.

Let me add a quick note form my perspective. I was in the middle of
trying to bridge between OGC and OSGeo around the tiling discussion.
This culminated in an IRC chat with Chris Schmidt during an OGC plenary
discussion and asking him whether the current take of the OGC's draft is
implementable or not. He answered 20 minutes later: "Yes, I implemented
it". That was cool. It just does not happen very often. But it shows
that we are not half as disconnected as some suggestions might make us
believe, except in our minds. And it always takes two sides to actually
*want* to connect. The want-this bit on OSGeo's side lacks. This is not
an opinion but my experience. Where does this frustration come from?

I wonder whether OSGeo could also improve on something. All suggestions
up to now point to the OGC needing to this or that. Let me ask back:
What could OSGeo do to improve? It is not like the OSGeo tiling
standards dominate the world, do they? If we really want to contribute
to the standards world in a meaningful way we should take this serious
and not just complain.

If you ask: Who is the OGC? Then the answer is the same as for OSGeo:
"Their respective members!" Now, who are the members of OGC? Believe me
when I say that some more FOSS folks there would make me very happy. We
have a MoU that gave us 6 OGC member slots for OSGeo folks and NONE of
them are currently in use. That sucks.

Regards,
Arnulf.

PS:
Most CC'd folks are on the standards list anyway so I dropped them.

- --
Arnulf Christl

Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAku8ipoACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b2O5QCfQD5mNXLzfj7cRfL7r8yElfO+
+toAn3OPyA9DVdJmYDg1l0saI9NtgGyS
=wK1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----