[OSGeo-Standards] OGC API White Paper. [was: Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots]

[Scott Simmons]

Bruce,

As a representative of OSGeo, you can circulate the White Paper to the entirety of the OSGeo community for their feedback. I would request that all comments be collected and forwarded to me by just one of the OSGeo reps to simplify our review!

Thanks,
Scott
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jody,
> 
> Have you seen the OGC White Paper [1] on APIs yet?
> 
> It had input from at least two OSGeo community members, Arnulf and Chris Holmes.
> 
> The paper currently requires authentication to access. 
> 
> @Scott, when do we (as in OGC), intend opening this document so that we (as in OSGeo) can review and offer feedback?   ;-)
> 
> Bruce
> 
> [1] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=71776&version=1 <https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=71776&version=1>
> 
> 
> On 7 Feb 2017, at 03:01, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the update - I have personally noticed the OGC being more open. How are the OGC membership reacting to the change? Are they enjoying additional feedback?
>> 
>> I still feel that OSGeo service as a voice for the open source industry, which often get's bottle necked on standards an interoperability. I have been concerned recently with a push towards proprietary java script apis that our industry will need to re-lean the value of open standards.
>> 
>> I feel I am missing something on the nudge nudge. I trust our representatives are behaving in a professional/responseive manner.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 06:25, Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net <mailto:arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net>> wrote:
>> Dear Board,
>> this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.
>> 
>> Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)). Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.
>> 
>> Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But for now we keep things running as they are.
>> 
>> Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good work and support!
>> 
>> Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!
>> 
>> Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through this list or individually.
>> 
>> Thanks & all the best,
>> Arnulf
>> 
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> Standards at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170206/adae95a8/attachment.html>