Not all of us are interested in standards development, just as not all of us are interested in FundRaising or Metadata or... I'd much prefer to keep the main list for announcements and general topics, not specific threads.
-mpg > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Landon Blake > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OSGeo Discussions > Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > What if we kept the standards discussion on this general > mailing list, but set up a little page on the wiki where we > could keep some more permanent notes. > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P Kishor > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:18 AM > To: OSGeo Discussions > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO & OGC spec development > > Lorenzo, > > Might I ask, what will a separate list accomplish that posting on just > the main OSGeo list won't? Standards are a sufficiently important > subject that all should be concerned with it, and definitely > knowledgeable about. > > Managing all these separate lists is becoming a pain in the derrière > for me. I would rather see and participate in the standards discussion > right here on the OSGeo discussion list. > > On 7/19/07, Lorenzo Becchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this list will be spammed > even before > > starting... ) > > > > should we proceed creating the list? > > does anyone disagree? > > > > ciao > > Lorenzo > > > > > > > > > > Frank Warmerdam wrote: > > > Michael P. Gerlek wrote: > > >> I'd not go so far as to create a list yet -- I'm not > sure we know what > > >> we're all looking for at this point. > > >> > > >> For example: do we really want "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or > perhaps more generally > > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? To my mind, these are two > related-but-different, > > >> and equally-interesting, ideas to explore... > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > I think it should be a "standards" list, not an OGC list, > even though > > > for practical purposes it will be mostly OGC standards. > > > > > > Best regards, > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ > Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ > Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/ > S&T Policy Fellow, National Academy of Sciences http://www.nas.edu/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > collaborate, communicate, compete > ===================================================================== > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > Warning: > Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed > against defects including translation and transmission > errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this information in error, please notify the > sender immediately. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
