On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote: > Hey Cameron, all, > ... > * The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an > alternative way forwards.
I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to do anyway. If there was at least some willingness to engage with the broader community on interoperability within the standard (and how do you have interoperability if you aren't willing to budge from a pre-defined position anyway?). Perhaps ESRI didn't realise their approach was going to come across with an "up you" attitude (or maybe they did)? The impression I've got it that many people feel ESRI is treating the OGC as a "rubber stamp" body (which very much implies arrogant contempt) regardless of the merits of the proposal. Hopefully I've got it wrong and ESRI really just botched their approach on this one (why do I feel this is naive wishful thinking?). FWIW, I don't believe having an alternate incompatible standard must of itself be a deal breaker, if the proposed standard genuinely represents a viable attempt at interoperability. After all, the wonderful thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. ;) Lets just not pretend it's about genuine interoperability unless that really is the case. Regards, Tim Bowden _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss