[OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] OGC liaison memberships

Seven (aka Arnulf) seven at arnulf.us
Mon Jun 3 03:46:43 PDT 2013

Hash: SHA1

On 01.06.2013 13:15, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> I'm moving this email thread from discuss at lists.osgeo.org to 
> standards at lists.osgeo.org.

Thanks Cameron.

I am happy to support your request for an OGC Individual Membership
granted through the OSGeo MoU with OGC given that you comply with
their rules.

Please simply follow the first two steps described here:

Then please send an email to Barabara Sherman from the OGC with
Michael and me in CC to let her know that you are eligible. She will
then let you know what else she needs.

And then please also follow-up with the third step of the above page
and let this standards list know after roughly three months what you
have been doing within the OGC membership. Unfortunately this has been
widely neglected by most previous members, Volker being the only


> Adrian, It is a good idea for OSGeo members have the opportunity to
> participate in OGC activities, and have a voice to air OSGeo
> opinions and concerns.
> I think that we are already reasonably close to having that goal. *
> OSGeo members can get access to OGC through the 5 OGC membership
> slots on offer [1]. * OGC did disseminate OSGeo's "Open Letter re
> Geoservices REST API".
> What is missing is an opportunity to share OGC information with
> the general public, which in turn would give the general public
> the opportunity to comment and provide feedback. (This is a general
> OGC issue to address, as the OGC use "access to OGC" as a means to
> attract funded members).
> Currently OSGeo doesn't have a vote at the OGC, which is something
> we might want to ask for. If we are to ask for a vote from OGC, we
> would need to be confident that we would have volunteers with
> sufficient time to review the material required to vote. Such
> reviewing will take quite a bit of time, but if we have volunteers
> willing to do the work, I think we have a good case to ask for such
> a vote.
> With regards to developing standards, I think it valuable for
> OSGeo members to be involved in standards development, but that
> already happens. (OSGeo members take part in OGC testbeds, using
> OGC processes). I don't think it appropriate for OSGeo to develop
> standards outside of the OGC.
> I suggest the way to move forward is for OSGeo to propose a
> process, which is approved at the next board meeting on 6 June, and
> which the board forwards onto OGC.
> Adrian, I suggest you start by putting together such a proposal
> which we can refine, then include at [1].
> [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_membership
> On 01/06/13 01:54, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>> I agree, let's get you moving on this, so, comments inline
>> below:
>> On 2013-05-31 10:45 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> On the front of becoming one of the liaison members, I would
>>> appreciate guidance on procedure. Do we generate a formal
>>> letter to me and the OGC or do we not yet have any procedure
>>> for this? I have just now asked Barbara Sherman of the OGC if
>>> she is aware of any procedure on her end. I would like to get
>>> this squared away quickly and easily.
>> See Frank's earlier response.  Arnulf and Mike are currently
>> managing this, so, usually someone like Arnulf will send an email
>> (CCing you) to Barbara at OGC referring you for one of the
>> Associate memberships. Arnulf can you do this for Adrian?  (with
>> you and Mike's approval of course)
>> Note that my Associate membership was renewed on 11 April.
>> I feel that having someone like you championing our efforts will
>> help me also to get more involved in the Standards.
>>> On the front of OSGeo building deeper ties with the OGC and,
>>> perhaps becoming a voting member someday, I think we should
>>> move forwards on a number of fronts jointly.
>> Becoming a voting member would greatly help the feeling of being 
>> involved, and give the OSGeo foundation a stronger voice in
>> standards development.
>>> The first is clearly discussion and openness, letting Carl, the
>>> head of the TC and Mark, the president of the OGC both know
>>> that this is something we are seeking and towards which we plan
>>> to work.
>> Agreed.
>>> A second front might be to become more active on the Standards
>>> Front. There has been some recent interest in OSGeo taking on
>>> some Standards related activity, where certainly being vocal
>>> and offering productive critiques could be productive. It may
>>> also prove useful to do more. For example, I am planning to
>>> write up a number of format standards in the next six months
>>> and so it might make sense for me to develop some of them
>>> within OSGeo. The standards would require buy in from this 
>>> community anyhow, so perhaps developing them here would give
>>> this community some more leverage in the Standards game. I'll
>>> do the bulk of the work first and then get back to you all on
>>> whether they make sense at OSGeo and how they could start life
>>> here. In the interim, OSGeo might consider how it could host
>>> 'standards focused projects' rather than 'software focused
>>> projects' or 'community focused projects'. I'm not sure that
>>> requires more work than agreeing it should be allowed. It could
>>> be part of 'labs' to stay informal or some other procedure
>>> might be invented.
>> re: standards: I've also heard some back-channel talk of
>> standards activity within OSGeo.  Whatever we do though, as you
>> said earlier it's very important that we work closely with Carl
>> and the OGC (we have an MoU signed with the OGC so that this can
>> happen).
>> re: projects: I feel that your passion will help us in being more
>> open to projects in general.  As you've said before to me, we're
>> part of a larger community and we must realize this.   (I don't
>> have the answers in how we do this specifically, but, keeping
>> this in the back of our/my minds is the first step I feel)
>> -jeff
>> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing
>> list Discuss at lists.osgeo.org 
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- -- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the Standards mailing list