[OSGeo-Standards] [Board] glossary discussion on osgeo-standards ....

Mon Nov 4 13:38:24 PST 2019

Hi Jorge,
Here is another request to set up an email list. Hope you have some 
bandwidth to set up for us:
https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/2377#ticket

Rob, speak up if you would like your name added to the email list admin.

On 5/11/19 7:24 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Thanks for the research Helena,
> 
> It sounds like an OSGeo Special Interest Group will address our Lexicon 
> Committee requirements. Unless there are any objections, I propose to 
> push forward with our agenda of setting up an email list, building a 
> committee, selecting a chair, and getting some work done.
> 
> If you have any objections, please respond ASAP, ideally within the next 
> 48 hours.
> 
> --
> 
> Further to Helena's research:
> 
> * Yes, I'd suggest special interest groups should be listed on the website.
> 
> * I found this page: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Interest_Groups which 
> I'd suggest should be made official by the board. It currently states: 
> "This page documents the current dicsussion and has not yet been 
> approved as official OSGeo policy!"
> 
> * The OSGeo Standards Committee should get a page somewhere. I'm pretty 
> sure it had one before, but I can't find it now.
> 
> On 2/11/19 1:22 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> I looked into this a little bit and I did not find any Standards 
>> committee here
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> https://www.osgeo.org/about/board/
>>
>> But I found OSGeo Standards special interest group and associated 
>> mailing list:
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Special-Interest-Groups-f5179645.html
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OSGeo-Standards-f5012448.html
>> Interestingly enough, I could not find the special interest groups on 
>> the new website - is it something that should be added there?
>>
>> I don’t think that board vote is needed to establish a special 
>> interest group and mailing list,
>> But the board can voice support and endorsement - I would like to 
>> voice my support here if the special interest group is the way to go.
>>
>> Cameron, if you think that it would be better to have Lexicon as an 
>> official OSGeo committee (with everything that comes with it, see
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Committee_Guidelines), then apparently, 
>>  the board needs to vote to approve the committee chair
>> according to the guidelines (which I believe are partially based on 
>> the bylaws).
>>
>> I hope this clarifies the process somewhat and cameron please let us 
>> know which way you would like to go,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the initiative, Helena
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter 
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Astroidex, Kalxas, Delawen, Helena, OSGeo Board,
>>>
>>> Do my answers below address your questions re setting up an OSGeo 
>>> Lexicon committee?
>>>
>>> Within the next few weeks I'm hoping to reach out to those from the 
>>> OSGeo community who have provided glossaries and are likely to be 
>>> interested in joining a Lexicon committee. From that committee we can 
>>> elect a chair.
>>>
>>> I'm prefer to have the OSGeo Board's blessing before progressing 
>>> further. Is that something you'd be prepared to provide?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Cameron
>>>
>>> On 30/10/19 10:17 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> Hi Angelos, board,
>>>> That is a good question. Working the lexicon community within the 
>>>> standards committee is something we should consider. While I 
>>>> wouldn't want to rule it out as an option, I'd vote -0 for it.
>>>> My reasoning:
>>>> * The lexicon committee is only focusing on one very narrow use case 
>>>> within the greater OSGeo/Standards space.
>>>> * The standards committee has a very board focus across all 
>>>> standards related use cases. In particular, it has focused on 
>>>> managing the relationship between OSGeo and OGC.
>>>> * The lexicon committee will be very noisy within this very specific 
>>>> lexicon use case. People interested in general standards will be 
>>>> swapped with emails and I predict we will very quickly kill off any 
>>>> other standards related conversations due to the noise.
>>>> * The standards committee is relatively quiet, and it could be 
>>>> argued that we could consider retiring the standards committee and 
>>>> restart it as a lexicon committee. I don't think this is the case. I 
>>>> think the standards committee still has meaning and purpose.
>>>>
>>>> For these reasons, I believe the Lexicon and Standards committees 
>>>> should be kept separate.
>>>>
>>>> For my next steps, I'm hoping to follow this process:
>>>> 1. Get endorsement from the board.
>>>> 2. Create a new lexicon at lists.osgeo.org 
>>>> <mailto:lexicon at lists.osgeo.org> email list
>>>> 3. Reach out to OSGeo projects and invite them to join the list and 
>>>> participate in a committee
>>>> 4. Boostrap a lexicon committee
>>>> 5. Committee members to vote for a committee chair
>>>> 6. Start getting serious about the work we are doing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping that the board can discuss via email, ask questions which 
>>>> I'll answer, then we can set up a motion and help us move through 
>>>> the steps above.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>
>>>> For reference, I've copied comments from the board meeting:
>>>> http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeo/%23osgeo.2019-10-28.log
>>>>
>>>> 16:22:49 	helena_: 	#7 Lexicon committee
>>>> 16:23:13 	helena_: 	they keep changing the name but it is an 
>>>> important initiative
>>>> 16:23:37 	astroidex: 	just a question. Could it be part of one 
>>>> existing committee?
>>>> 16:23:47 	delawen: 	(I'm back did I miss any voting?)
>>>> 16:23:50 	kalxas: 	I am wondering why this has to be a separate 
>>>> committee from standards
>>>> 16:24:03 	astroidex: 	same for me
>>>> 16:24:06 	kalxas: 	delawen, no :)
>>>> 16:24:19 	astroidex: 	it could be part of education
>>>> 16:24:38 	delawen: 	if they feel they have enough work to be 
>>>> isolated... see no reason why not
>>>> 16:24:43 	astroidex: 	https://www.osgeo.org/about/committees/
>>>> 16:24:44 	sigq: 	Title: Committees - OSGeo (at www.osgeo.org 
>>>> <http://www.osgeo.org/>)
>>>> 16:24:44 	kalxas: 	given that OGC and ISO are involved, I think it 
>>>> should be standards
>>>> 16:24:53 	delawen: 	but I would give them some time to do stuff 
>>>> before making them official
>>>> 16:25:41 	delawen: 	If you think it should be standards, we can 
>>>> answer them that
>>>> 16:25:41 	kalxas: 	also, we do need a chair to approve them, right?
>>>> 16:26:00 	helena_: 	Angelos - can you please get bcak to Cameron 
>>>> with suggestion from the board to make it part of standards?
>>>> 16:26:25 	astroidex: 	good idea
>>>> 16:26:44 	kalxas: 	yes, I can follow up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 02:30, Angelos Tzotsos <gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com 
>>>> <mailto:gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi Cameron,
>>>>
>>>>     The formation of the lexicon committee was discussed during the
>>>>     board
>>>>     meeting yesterday.
>>>>     One question that came up is: what is the reason this work
>>>>     cannot be
>>>>     done under the standards committee, since this involves members
>>>>     from
>>>>     OSGeo, OGC and ISO?

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254