[OSGeo-Standards] OGC liaison memberships

[Arnulf Christl]

On 07.06.2013 10:53, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On 7/06/2013 3:06 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
>> 1) wanting clarification on your statement
>>
>> > I don't think it appropriate for OSGeo to develop standards outside of
>> > the OGC.
>>
>> since that seemed to have some thinking behind it but runs counter to
>> my feeling on particular standards, and 
> 
>  I feel it is preferable to have one organisation coordinating the
> development of standards as it reduces the potential for creation of
> competing and overlapping standards.
> Over time the OGC has developed and refined processes and expertise in
> developing standards. I feel it is preferable to improve on an existing
> system, rather than starting again from scratch. To OGC's credit, they
> have an excellent track record of listening to the community and
> adopting new ideas, and as such we should consider this path first.

Folks,
maybe we can split the task of creating a standard into several steps. I
do believe that OSGeo is a great place to develop something that can
eventually become a regular standard. Let's call it a "candidate
standard". Step one.

Later on in the process the OGC should be the place to make it
officially approved and set in stone. This includes nasty things like IP
/ patent protection, recognition as something stable, communication to
the non-Open Source vendor world, etc. Step three.

Funny enough this could work exactly like esri proposed the GeoServices
REST API thing. Someone in the broader OSGeo realm develops something
like - say the Web Map Tile Spec. Folks start to implement software
around it, the community starts using it and it is generally accepted as
worthwhile and usable. Step 2.

One day OSGeo (or someone else) throws it into the OGC for broader
inspection: Step 3. There is gets straightened out as a regular standard
with all the nasty hard work, paper tigers included so that later maybe
even ISO might eat it (Step 8) and eventually it gets approved - or
rebutted. If the former it can become part of public procurement
processes and everybody is happy. If the latter somebody is pissed off
but the world is a little less regulated (wooha, cool!).

Sounds straight forward, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Arnulf

-- 
Arnulf Christl (Chief Opinionator)
Open Source Geospatial Software, Data and Services
http://www.metaspatial.net