[Webcom] Motion: Ian Edwards joins WebCom
iedwards.pub at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 09:50:07 PDT 2013
Jeff - I agree and we share your frustration.
Unfortunately from my perspective, my offer of contributing time over the
next eight days is only for this specific point-fix. I hope that we can get
this solved and then move on to important issues.
My reasoning is:
1. It's an easy introductory task for me to get used to working with the
2. I'm on holiday with family and my computer contact time is limited
3. I'm not up to speed with the group's backlog and the specifics of the
I'm happy to dig into #1105 late next week and see if there's anything I
can do to help. I hope that I can, but this week I'm still finding my feet.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
> I feel this discussion is a lower priority. The feedback I get from
> around the community is regarding a separate topic, fixing the OSGeo
> Service Provider utility http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1105
> I'm frustrated in waiting for this. I keep getting feedback from
> service providers all around the world quite upset about this.
> I'm looking for the Web Committee to tackle this, manage it, or even get
> back to me saying "jeff please try for funding from the Board for
> someone to handle this, we have no time for this effort".
> On 2013-07-30 9:48 AM, Ian Edwards wrote:
> > I should clarify my thoughts - I think that we may still need to address
> > the issues raised by Frank and others sometime in the future. But to get
> > us consistent and up to date as soon as possible I'm +1.
> > (promoting OSGeo Live at the same time is a very valuable consequence and
> > gives people an easy route to trialing the software. If we find a
> > different solution inthe future then I think it should continue to
> > highlight the value that OSGeo provides through OSGeo Live).
> > On 29 Jul 2013 23:38, "Frank Warmerdam" <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Ian Edwards <iedwards.pub at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi Cameron,
> >>> I've always been +1 agreeing with you on this. In fact it's the reason
> >>> joined WebCom.
> >>> But there have been some quiet counter arguments voiced off list. Is
> >> WebCom
> >>> happy to vote on this so that we can progress to a solution? Or does
> >>> need approval higher up? Chris - what are your thoughts?
> >> Cameron,
> >> I was the quietly voiced counter argument, for the reasons given. I'm
> >> essentially -0 on the motion for the reasons given, but if there is a
> >> consensus on webcom to go this way I can certainly live with it.
> >> Best regards,
> >> --
> Webcom mailing list
> Webcom at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Webcom