[Webcom] Motion: Ian Edwards joins WebCom

[Adam Włodarkiewicz]

Hello All,

Jeff told me to write here. I offered to fix #1105 here:
http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1105#comment:10 and, as mentioned in the
issue discussion, I need someone from WebCom to approve my solution and
push it to the server.


2013/7/30 Ian Edwards <iedwards.pub at gmail.com>

> 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
> group
> 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
> other issues.
>
> 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
> > wrote:
>
> > 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".
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > I
> > >>> 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
> > this
> > >>> 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
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/webcom
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Webcom mailing list
> Webcom at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/webcom
>