[OSGeo-Standards] for review/input/feedback: OSGeo / OGC MOU

[Tom Kralidis]

Hi Bruce: thanks for the valuable feedback.  Some comments:

- RE: obligations: we are thinking that an annual joint OGC/OSGeo work
report will be
valuable to inform both organizations of progress and notable items

- engagement: good points here.  With OGC's recent focus on developers and
dev relations,
it would be valuable for OGC to provide a "101" session to interested folks
in OSGeo.  In addition,
I understand that OGC is building up developer resources/workshops and
other strategies to
continue to strengthen this relationship.  Scott and/or Joana (OGC's new
dev rel) will be able
to provide further insight on this topic.

Thanks again for the feedback.

..Tom


On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:18 PM Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Well done for progressing this. The overall intent is good.
>
> Some comments:
>
> 1. The MOU
>
>

>    - Associate Membership. This is a welcome change and will open up
>    participation in OGC teams. Recalling Cameron Shorters comments, it will
>    negate the need for OSGeo to find an agreed position on Voting issues if
>    the membership was increased to Technical. Given our loose community this
>    is probably a good thing. It will not negate the need for OSGeo to develop
>    processes to ensure that OSGeo Members who take up these OGC membership
>    slots act in good faith as representatives of OSGeo.
>
>
>
>    - "OGC will waive the Trademark License fee associated with Compliance
>    certification”. This statement is constrained to only those open source
>    applications that are selected as Reference Implementations with some
>    additional constraints.
>       - While this mechanism is welcome, it is quite restrictive.
>       - Perhaps a better way to handle this is to waive Trademark License
>       fees on Compliance Certification for ***any*** open source product that
>       passes compliance test procedures. This approach will have many flow on
>       benefits, including:
>          - Encourage open source projects to pursue compliance
>          certification. As it stands most projects have limited resources and it is
>          very unlikely that these scarce resources will be spent on a certification
>          process.
>          - Provide more products that are compliant with OGC Standards
>          - Make it easier for proprietary software products that embed
>          open source products to get certification
>          - Make available a range of source code that passes
>          certification to proprietary software vendors to guide their proprietary
>          certification efforts
>          - improve the ease of adoption of open spatial standards by end
>          users
>
>
>
>    - The MOU places obligations on both OGC and OSGeo. What thought has
>    been given to mechanisms to ensure that these obligations are met?
>
>
>
> 2. Community engagement
>
>
>    - There has not been a lot of community engagement in this issue.
>    - The OGC is currently going through a renaissance in the
>    modernisation of open spatial standards.
>    - To begin to bring the OSGeo Community along for the journey, I think
>    that we need a way of getting people up to speed with what is happening in
>    the Open Spatial Standards space.
>
>
> @Scott,
>
> Can I suggest that you point OSGeo Members to some primer material to
> start this process? I expect that much of this already exists. Some
> suggestions:
>
>
>    - Why are open spatial standards important?
>
>
>
>    - Why should I provide open spatial standards capability in my (open
>    source) product?
>
>
>
>    - What is the easiest way to learn about the open spatial standards
>    approaches to doing things?
>
>
>
>    - What is the new open spatial standards direction?
>
>
>
>    - How do a go about my learning process?
>
>
>
>    - How are standards developed? How han I best participate and
>    collaborate?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On 10 Aug 2021, at 00:55, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone: hope you are all doing well.  Per subject and [1][2], we have
> been working
> with OGC to renew our Memorandum of Understanding, and now have a draft
> (Exhibit A) of
> the MOU for your review and comment.
>
> Please see [3] for your review, comment and input.  Anyone with the link
> should be able to
> comment in the document.
>
> This is an important time for the updated MOU.  Open Source and Open
> Standards are
> natural, healthy and evolving, and this MOU will grow the collaboration
> between our
> organizations especially given OGC's increasing focus on developers.  Note
> that the MOU
> provides OSGeo an Associate Membership as well as the opportunity for
> input into the next
> generation of compliance testing (CITE).
>
> Input and feedback is requested by Friday, 03 September 2021 at 12h UTC.
>
> If there are no major issues, we will put the MOU for approval at the F2F
> Board meeting following
> FOSS4G 2021.
>
> If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> On behalf of those involved in updating the MOU (OGC, OSGeo MOU Review
> Team).
>
> ..Tom
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/MoU_OGC/Review_2020
> [2] https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/osgeo/todo/issues/80
> [3]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LNbDCkmjqfOtrUjOLkYNNhKhtPzXI_uCAC4R-l8drbY
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20210823/1e6e32db/attachment.html>