Note the news section is intended for news related to a specific service provider. Its *not* doing this now, so its unclear.
Can you file an issue about the search. Agree this should work for a project name here. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > > yes for me (OpenGeoLabs) it works as it is now - we are listed, we have > links to projects we can support, there is logo, picture, web page, once it > works, we are gonna be on the map, what could I possibly ask for more? (if > the graphics around "News" will be made more clear) > > side note: maybe adding note, that if you are searching for specifing > service provider related to project, you should go to project page and find > the service providers there, since search "geoserver" does not return any > result at this page > > J > > > út 22. 8. 2017 v 1:24 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> > napsal: >> >> Jeff have you heard from any small companies that feel alienated? For many >> being a small company gives them a chance to offer personal service. I do >> not want to make assumptions if we can help it. >> >> My feedback was actually focused on the site design, partnership & friend >> relationships are appropriate for government and NGOs, geoforall labs are >> the appropriate relationship for education and science etc. If that is clear >> we can return to the earlier discussion - specifically about service >> provider size. (we should also be sure to capture this discussion on the >> issue tracker so it can actually inform the review of the website). >> >> Many of these decisions already took place during the earlier wireframe >> stage of the project (by contributors who stepped up to the marketing >> committee). We already went back to the drawing table on some of the key >> decisions during wire framing and initial website design. >> >> To clearly set expectations - we will not have a chance to revisit each >> and every decision due to limitations on time/budget. It is hard though, >> because it is much easier to care about a website when it is pretty and we >> can all see it :) >> >> My initial message to Jachym was trying to confirm that the organization >> size worked for opengeolabs (simply because this was already a decision that >> had been revisited once). >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM Jeff McKenna >> <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jody, >>> >>> By alienating the smaller OSGeo companies in our new website, I don't >>> see a benefit to OSGeo at all. Let us please all sizes of OSGeo >>> companies, small and big. >>> >>> Yes this is tricky, for sure, even your initial message to Jachym shows >>> a lot of what it could be like, if OSGeo suddenly distinguishes size. >>> Let's avoid this totally, I believe. >>> >>> I am open to other suggestions to the wording as well. >>> >>> Tricky! :) >>> >>> -jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017-08-21 6:53 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: >>> > I already changed it from number to the size thing. >>> > >>> > This list was for support providers (since the website is about >>> > outreach >>> > looks at projects, local chapters and service providers). >>> > >>> > GeoForAll labs and academic / research outreach are in slightly >>> > different spot (we could cross link). See >>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/geo-for-all-labs/ >>> > >>> > I do not think public:government, NGO/non-profit would like to be >>> > contacted for commercial support :) That said they can be listed in our >>> > site as partners and friends. Sort order is given to groups with a >>> > defined relationship with OSGeo (such as ISPRS, LocationTech,...). See >>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/partners/ >>> > >>> > Recognizing service providers on our website in this way is a new thing >>> > - I hope it works out :) >>> > >>> > This design is full of difficult decisions thanks for contributing to >>> > the discussion (and content). >>> > >>> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:30 PM Jeff McKenna >>> > <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Jachym, >>> > >>> > Yes I agree, it is a slippery slope that once we/OSGeo decide that >>> > size >>> > is an important part of our organization (as you know, many other >>> > organizations separate their membership by size), it opens up so >>> > many >>> > other challenges. For that reason, I spoke up here to suggest that >>> > we >>> > avoid all that, by suggesting 4 options to cover that. >>> > >>> > Indeed my proposal does include all organizations, purposely. >>> > OSGeo is >>> > built on that, and has done an amazing job in creating a thriving >>> > community. >>> > >>> > Thanks for listening Jachym, >>> > >>> > -jeff >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2017-08-21 6:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: >>> > > Hi Jeff (all) >>> > > >>> > > currently, the page is listing "service providers" - it's >>> > project >>> > > oriented (as providing services to projects) >>> > > >>> > > your proposal is shifting it little bit to "all organisations", >>> > not even >>> > > service providing - but what is their releationship to the >>> > (osgeo) >>> > > projects? - still, it would be fine to me >>> > > >>> > > I would be +1 for it, if it's does not hit to some other >>> > principle, >>> > > already hardcoded in the page (e.g. >>> > > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/initiatives/geo-for-all/ is >>> > partly >>> > > coreving the Academic/Research topic - just an example of >>> > potencial >>> > > conflict, which we could oversee) >>> > > >>> > > I do not know, just noting, I have no strong opinion - I want to >>> > be >>> > > inclusive, all for adding another categories, but the rules and >>> > > principals should be clear. Currently, how I understand it "you >>> > can be >>> > > listed as long as you are providing services to projects" >>> > > >>> > > J >>> > > >>> > > út 22. 8. 2017 v 0:11 odesílatel Jeff McKenna >>> > > <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com >>> > <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> >>> > <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com >>> > <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>>> >>> > > napsal: >>> > > >>> > > On 2017-08-21 5:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: >>> > > > For your page >>> > > > >>> > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is >>> > > that a >>> > > > single consultant (you!) or a company? >>> > > > (or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it) >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > Hi Jody, >>> > > >>> > > Regarding separating the OSGeo community by size, I suggest >>> > that we >>> > > avoid offending our community members, so let's stay >>> > positive >>> > and make >>> > > the following change: >>> > > >>> > > I recommend that we/OSGeo change the "Organization Type" >>> > section to >>> > > contain the following 4 options: >>> > > >>> > > 1. Private >>> > > 2. Academic/Research >>> > > 3. Public/Government >>> > > 4. Non-profit >>> > > >>> > > The same 4 options should be applied to the options in the >>> > "Filter" >>> > > search on the site for "Service Provider Type". >>> > > >>> > > Thanks. >>> > > >>> > > Jachym: you did a great job on the OpenGeoLabs page, and >>> > thanks for >>> > > supporting OSGeo all of these years :) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -jeff >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Jeff McKenna >>> > > President Emeritus, OSGeo Foundation >>> > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
