[OSGeo-Standards] Fw: [TC-Announce] GeoServices REST API adoption vote - update and motion to withdraw

[Jeff McKenna]

Thanks for this update Carl.

-jeff

--
OSGeo President


On 2013-05-30 12:57 AM, Carl Reed wrote:
> Dear OSGeo Community -
>  
> Today I sent out an email to the OGC membership regarding the current
> status of the GeoServices adoption vote. Please see the email below.
>  
> We appreciate the input provided by the OSGeo community during the
> voting process. Based on the discussion and comments that occurred
> during this vote, we will be engaging Members as well as the
> implementation community in discussions regarding how to evolve and
> improve the OGC standards setting process.
>  
> Thanks and regards
>  
> Carl Reed, PhD
> CTO
> OGC
>  
>  
>  
> *From:* Carl Reed <mailto:creed at opengeospatial.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:11 AM
> *To:* TC Announce <mailto:tc-announce at lists.opengeospatial.org>
> *Subject:* [TC-Announce] GeoServices REST API adoption vote - update
> andmotion to withdraw
>  
> 
> Dear TC -
> 
>  
> 
> On Tuesday of this week, the GeoServices REST API Standards Working
> Group (SWG) voted to approve the following recommendation to the TC
> Voting Members:
> 
>  
> 
> The GeoServices REST SWG recommends the TC approve withdrawal of the
> motion to approve the OGC GeoServices REST API documents as an official
> OGC standard. Moved: Keith Ryden. Second: Clemens Portele. There was no
> objection to unanimous consent.
> 
>  
> 
> The following is the reason for requesting the motion to approve the
> candidate standard be withdrawn:
> 
>  
> 
> “Considering the breath of discussion both internal and external to the
> OGC process since the vote announcement, the SWG members feel that the
> vote cannot continue until the many questions raised have been
> addressed. Issues regarding OGC process, vendor advantage, duplication
> of capabilities, etc. have now overshadowed technical discussions of the
> merits of the specification. By withdrawing the OGC GeoServices REST API
> candidate standard, the necessary discussions regarding OGC process,
> policy, and position can continue separately.”
> 
> The SWG further discussed the need for OGC Members and staff to debate,
> clarify and potentially amend a number of policy and procedural issues
> before the SWG can decide to either disband or to resume technical work
> on the candidate standard
> 
>  
> 
> Today or tomorrow the TC Chair (me) will be asking the TC Voting Members
> to consider the GeoServices REST API SWG recommendation. The motion is:
> 
>  
> 
> “The GeoServices REST API SWG recommends that the GeoServices adoption
> vote be withdrawn.  If there is no objection to unanimous consent in the
> next 10 calendar days, then the motion is approved. If there are
> objections, than a two week e-vote will be initiated.”
> 
>  
> 
> Over the coming months there will be opportunities for OGC staff,
> members and the general public to engage in discussions related to
> policy and procedures, such as clear statements on openness and
> interoperability, overlapping standards, backwards compatibility and so
> forth. The idea is to begin a dialogue as part of the virtual meetings
> this and next month with a goal to address the issues raised and
> recommend changes at the upcoming September Frascati meetings.
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to thank the SWG for all of their hard work on the
> candidate standard. I would also like to thank everyone who contributed
> to the conversation.
> 
>  
> 
> Any questions, please let me know.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
>  
> Carl Reed, PhD
> CTO and Executive Director Standards Program
> Open Geospatial Consortium
> www.opengeospatial.org
> 
> The OGC: Making Location Count!
> 
> ---------------------
> 
>