I am having a hard time seeing how this is a CoC matter. Camille On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com > wrote:
> Hi Peter, > > It may be early here at FOSS4G-Seoul, but I am finding it hard to > understand your full issue. Can you please explain here to everyone what > you mean by "I found that OSGeo has claimed rasdaman at some > time in the past". Claimed how/where/in what way? As far as I know, > rasdaman is an OSGeo Project in Incubation, and, having been at the OSGeo > booth here most of this week I have spoken to many people coming to the > booth about rasdaman. So, pardon me if I am in the total dark here, maybe > you could explain more to everyone, as I sense that you are upset. > > Thanks, > > -jeff > > > > > On 2015-09-18 1:21 AM, Peter Baumann wrote: > >> Hello community, >> >> here is another real case that I would like to raise. >> >> rasdaman [0] is listed on OpenHub [1], like many of us, with owner >> rasdaman GmbH >> set originally. By coincidence I found that OSGeo has claimed rasdaman at >> some >> time in the past. >> >> To my total surprise, as rasdaman is in incubation since about 5 years >> now [2], >> and since quite some time OSGeo refuses graduation requiring this and >> that extra >> documentation. >> >> I find this undercover misappropriation a gross violation of professional >> ethics >> and request to immediately "give back" the project as a remedial action. >> I could >> do it myself, but recently OpenHub requires a phone number to be entered >> to >> which, as blog comments show, spam will get sent. IMO it is on OSGeo to >> bring >> this sacrifice. >> >> Actually, I know who has "stolen ownership", but will not disclose >> identity >> publicly following suggested practice. >> >> Rather, I am seeking contact to and investigation by the CoC Committee (or >> whoever is in charge). >> >> Thanks, >> Peter >> >> [0] http://www.rasdaman.org >> [1] https://www.openhub.net/p/rasdaman >> [2] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeo >> >> PS: On the side, this IMHO justifies an amendment of the CoC rules to >> prevent >> such a case in future. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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