[OSGeo-Standards] TMS and WMTS

[Raj Singh]

Nice comment Arnulf. OGC really moves via the time and effort put in  
by members. There's no reason to create a false OGC vs. OSGeo  
dichotomy. If OSGeo uses their membership slots and puts the time in  
to write one or two documents and participate on mailing lists, their  
impact can be as great as any.

---
Raj


On Apr 7, at 9:37 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

> -----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-----
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards