Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

Apart from these few emails telling me that a move to something called Discourse is happening, I have not seen any discussion on our lists explaining the pros and cons of such a move. I find this lack of community engagement on this issue to be troubling.This does not seem to be a very open source community way of making such a significant move.Personally, what we have now has been working nicely for me for close on 20 years.The lists have been very quiet for quite a while now, but that is a community engagement issue. It is not something that technology will magically fix.It seems to me that we have a case of the tail wagging the dog.Kind regards,BruceOn 29 Dec 2023, at 05:15, Jody Garnett via Discuss  wrote:Reading online it appears there is:1. A mailing list mode so notifications are sent out each time a post is made (this is a user preference)2. A reply via email modeSo experimentation is needed.Reference:- https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-is-mailing-list-mode/46008/8- https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-up-reply-by-email-with-pop3-polling/14003--Jody GarnettOn Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:09 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:I think we need someone who understand how discourse works to make an informed decision.If the forum fills up with questions; and the developers are minding the email list - it will not work out so well :) At least as described.--Jody GarnettOn Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 6:58 AM Vicky Vergara  wrote:On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:43 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:Q: So if a mailing list is mirrored to discourse it operates similar to nabble used to? Is searchable etc …I don't know the details of how discourse works,  But replies done via discourse are not sent to mailing list subscribers - so it is one way communication.https://meta.discourse.org/t/create-a-read-only-mailing-list-mirror/77990 And the thinking here is that discourse is easier for people who want to ask a specific question without subscribing to a mailing list (and getting yet more email).Yes, so you can have the mirror in one category and another catergory for Q&A --Jody GarnettOn Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 9:07 AM Vicky Vergara  wrote:Hi JodyWe are offering optionsBefore:Use mailing listAfter:* Use mailing list and see the archives only on https://lists.osgeo.org/* Use mailing list and see the archives also on discourse* Use discourse without a mailing list 
This are the possibilities regarding migration of mailing list* Have the mailing list migrated completely to discourse example [1]  (Use discourse without a mailing list, but get previous conversations from mailing list)* Have a mirror of the mailing in discourse example [2] (Use mailing list and see the archives also on discourse)* Have a category on discourse and not have a mailing list example [3] was created by Jody (Use discourse without a mailing list)* Opt to not migrate or mirror the mailing list example [4] (Use mailing list and see the archives only on https://lists.osgeo.org/)[1] https://discourse.osgeo.org/c/qgis/qgis-fr-user/5[2] https://discourse.osgeo.org/c/sac-global-category/sac/13[3] https://discourse.osgeo.org/t/about-the-osgeo-site-feedback-category/1[4] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/foss4g2008loc/RegardsVickyOn Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 10:16 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:I was lurking in the sys admin chat as I was working on the osgeo sign up form. Mailing lists are not going away, but I am unclear at what is being offered.--Jody GarnettOn Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 8:01 AM Eli Adam  wrote:






Hi,




I'm also unclear on what is going on.  It looks like discourse options are being added.  This raises questions about mailing lists.  1. Are mailing lists going away?  2. Can projects choose to keep just the mailing list and not add dicourse?




Thanks, Eli


From: Discuss  on behalf of Vicky Vergara via Discuss 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 9:52 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions 
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
 




Hi Jody,




On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 9:31 PM Jody Garnett  wrote:


Vicky,


Is there any more information on what is being offered here?


I have not used discourse very much. What do you mean by having a category Can you be more clear about migrate and mirror.




Category, is like the one you created about the discourse site feedback.
Mirror, is a category that mirrors the mailing list, so the mails received on the mailing list are also shown on discourse.

If you "reply" to those mails using discourse, they will not be shown on the mailing list, as the mirror does not send mails to the mailing list.

The reply that will be shown is the one done using mail.






Will the existing list of email subscribers be part of migrating a mailing list


 

When migrating subscribers are also migrated and are "staged use

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some continuity of organization and management

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

Well said Sanghee.

As a former member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009 I agree with the local community 
development argument, though in our case it led to a lot of burn-out.

There is also the practicality of finding a conference organiser that can 
operate effectively anywhere in the world.

Should the alternate approach go through, significant thought also needs to go 
into the procurement process to avoid the very real potential for corruption.

Kind regards,

Bruce

> On 9 Feb 2022, at 01:28, 신상희 via Discuss  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I prefer option 1. 
> 
> If this poll was asked just after FOSS4G Seoul 2015, I would have selected 
> option 2 without any hesitations. 
> 
> However I now realize that I, LOC members, and local community had learned a 
> lot by going through the difficulties of preparing the event altogether. That 
> experience was very unique, invaluable and is now one of driving force of 
> vibrant activity of OSGeo Korean chapter. Community driven FOSS4G with help 
> from PCO is not so bad model, I think. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 신상희
> ---
> Shin, Sanghee
> Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
> www.gaia3d.com
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "michael terner" 
> To: "Steven Feldman" 
> Cc: "OSGeo-Conf" ; "OSGeo Discussions" 
> ; "Massimiliano Cannata" 
> ; "Eli Adam" 
> Sent: 2022-02-06 오전 6:09:42
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Conf] Poll: Change FOSS4G structure to have some 
> continuity of organization and management
> 
>> +2 for considering change
>> 
>> There's definitely room to consider continual improvements for the 
>> conference process, as the world, and our community has evolved considerably 
>> over the last few years. No easy solutions, but lots to think about.
>> 
>> Eli starting this thread with an "informal poll" makes complete sense. The 
>> Committee is simply doing it's job of helping the Board to manage and 
>> promote the conference activity. We don't get to make decisions by 
>> ourselves, but generating ideas is certainly part of the mandate. And, as 
>> others have said, if the board disagrees with a proposal/idea, they do not 
>> have to approve it.
>> 
>> MT
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:02 AM Steven Feldman  wrote:
>>> +2 from me
>>> 
>>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the conversation about changes to the 
>>> organisation of FOSS4G, then the Conference Ctee should vote and make a 
>>> recommendation (or recommendations) to the Board and the Board should 
>>> decide.
>>> 
>>> Our organisational model is that the charter members elect the board and 
>>> the board then makes decisions on their behalf, if CM’s don’t agree with 
>>> board decisions they have the option to vote in a new board, we do not have 
>>> a direct voting or referendum system where CM’s are consulted on individual 
>>> decisions.
>>> __
>>> Steven
>>> 
>>> Unusual maps in strange places -  mappery.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe to my weekly “Maps in the Wild” newsletter
>>> 
 On 4 Feb 2022, at 09:01, Jeroen Ticheler  
 wrote:
 
 Hi Maxi,
 Thanks! I completely agree with those type of changes indeed. It makes 
 sense we have a list of scenario’s forward and have a vote on that by the 
 community. 
 
 For what the membership of the conference committee is concerned, I left 
 simply because of the supposed/imposed barrier of not having been a 
 conference chair, although I didn’t agree with that at all. Didn’t feel 
 like fighting over it though. It would be better to make membership 
 voluntary just like other committees. Possibly approved by the board or 
 charter members. 
 
 Cheers,
 Jeroen
 
 
 Jeroen Ticheler
 Mobile: +31681286572
 E-mail: jeroen.tiche...@geocat.net
 https://www.geocat.net
 Veenderweg 13
 6721 WD Bennekom
 The Netherlands
 Tel: +31318416664
> On 4 Feb 2022, 09:02 +0100, Massimiliano Cannata 
> , wrote:
> Dear Jeroen,
> Thanks for your considerations.
> 
> I wasn't proposing to extend the evaluation of proposals to the whole 
> community. I understand a dedicated committee should do this (even though 
> I believe a part of the evaluation of a proposal could be assigned by 
> votes of the community, maybe 10%?).
> 
> My point is that decisions of changing the organisation of the FOSS4G 
> cannot be done without the involvement of the whole community. It's not 
> about changing the evaluation process, it's about deciding for example to 
> have a fixed location, to completely leave it to an external company, to 
> pay the committee members to do it, to have it online or in person, to 
> cancel the global and keep only to local conference...
> 
> Another point is that so far there's the assumption that only organizer 
> of previous FOSS4G have the competence to understand technical matters. 
> That's quite aleatory and in no other committee there is such an entry 
> barrier... I

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Conference selection transparency (Was Announcement: Call for Location global FOSS4G 2023)

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

Jonathan,

Do you have a suggestion as to how the process can be improved?

Kind regards,

Bruce

Disclosure:

I was a member of the LOC for FOSS4G-2009.

I personally don’t have a problem with the process as is, but it may be 
possible to improve things. That is, provided that we don’t make the job of our 
volunteers more difficult than it needs to be.

In the end the people who have stepped up to do the work will need to make the 
call. We may not like the outcome, but we need to trust that they are acting in 
OSGeo’s best interest and respect their decision.

> On 13 Jan 2022, at 20:58, Jonathan Moules via Discuss 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can ask questions to the candidates.
> 
> Yes, they can (and yes, I have asked questions), but here's the thing: The 
> only people who actually matter are the people who vote. And we have no idea 
> what they vote (for the valid reason stated) or what their criteria are for 
> their vote (which is a problem). If the committee don't read and/or care 
> about the questions asked/answered then said questions/answers are 
> meaningless.
> 
> > The only two things that are not public are:
> 
> I disagree, the third thing that's not public, and by far the most important, 
> is the actual scoring criteria. Each committee member is a black-box in this 
> regard. Not only do we not find out *what* they voted (fine), we also never 
> know *why* they voted a specific way.
> 
> Did Buenos Aires win because:
> 
> * it had the shiniest brochure?
> 
> * it was cheapest?
> 
> * that's where the committee members wanted to go on holiday?
> 
> * nepotism?
> 
> * the region seemed like it'd benefit the most?
> 
> * they were feeling grumpy at the chair of the other RfP that day?
> 
> * they had the "best" bid?
> 
> ... etc
> 
> 
> 
> Disclosure: I am definitely *NOT* stating those are the reasons it was 
> chosen!!! I'm highlighting them because the lack of transparency means we 
> can't know what the actual reasons were. Frankly, given the absolutely huge 
> list of cognitive biases that exist, there's a reasonable chance that the 
> voters aren't voting why they think they're voting either. That's just the 
> human condition; we're great at deceiving ourselves and rationalisations (me 
> included).
> 
> To work around this, with public sector contracts in the western world you 
> have a list of requirements and then all the bids are scored against those 
> requirements. The one with the highest score wins the contract. *That* is 
> transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> TL;DR: We don't know why the voters vote as they do. The public sector solves 
> this by requiring scoring of bids against a list of pre-published 
> requirements.
> 
> I hope that clears things up. I'm not in any way suggesting impropriety, I'm 
> highlighting we have no way of knowing there's no impropriety. Hence my claim 
> as to a lack of transparency; the votes are opaque.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022-01-13 07:35, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:50 PM Jonathan Moules via Discuss
>>  wrote:
>>> On the surface, this is a good idea, but unfortunately it has a fundamental 
>>> problem:
>>> There are no "criteria for selection" of the conference beyond "the 
>>> committee members voted for this proposal". There's zero transparency in 
>>> the process.
>> I can't let this serious accusation go unanswered.
>> 
>> All the process is done via public mailing lists. All the criteria is
>> published on the Request For Proposals. Anyone on the community can
>> review the RFP and propose changes to it. Anyone on the community can
>> read the proposals and interact with the candidatures.
>> 
>> The only two things that are not public are:
>>  * Confidentiality issues with the proposals. For example sometimes
>> providers give you huge discounts in exchange of not making that
>> discount public. So you can't show the budget publicly, unless you are
>> willing to not use the discount.
>>  * What each member of the committee votes. And this is to ensure they
>> can freely vote without fearing consequences.
>> 
>> Which are two very reasonable exceptions.
>> 
>> Anyone can ask questions to the candidates. If I am right, you
>> yourself have been very active on this process for the past years.
>> Were you not the one that asked what a GeoChica is or am I confusing
>> you with some other Jonathan? If I am confusing you with some other
>> Jonathan, my mistake. Maybe you are not aware of the transparency of
>> the process.
>> 
>> The process is transparent and public except on those two exceptions
>> that warrantee the process is going to be safe.
> ___
> 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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: [TC-Announce] OGC invites Tenders for the Provision of Compliance Testing Software Engineering Consulting Services

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: announce--- via TC-Announce 
> Subject: [TC-Announce] OGC invites Tenders for the Provision of Compliance 
> Testing Software Engineering Consulting Services
> Date: 15 July 2021 at 23:38:01 AEST
> To: tc-annou...@lists.opengeospatial.org
> Reply-To: "annou...@opengeospatial.org" 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> OGC invites Tenders for the Provision of Compliance Testing Software 
> Engineering Consulting Services
> 
> OGC is seeking the provision of consulting services in support of the 
> Compliance Program’s TEAM Engine validator tool and related Executable Test 
> Suites.
> 
>  
> 
> Contact: i...@ogc.org 
> 
> 15 July 2021: The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) invites organizations to 
> bid for providing Software Engineering Consulting Services to the OGC 
> Compliance Program. Interested organizations should respond to the Invitation 
> To Tender (ITT) 
> .
>  Responses close August 15th, 2021.
> 
> The OGC Compliance Program provides a certification process that ensures 
> organizations' solutions are compliant with OGC Standards, creating 
> confidence that any compliant product will seamlessly integrate with other 
> compliant solutions - regardless of the vendor that created them. 
> 
> The certification process makes use of the OGC Validator tool 
> 
>  (aka TEAM Engine), which enables software developers to test whether their 
> products comply with OGC Standards. The Invitation to Tender (ITT) concerns 
> the provision of consulting services in support of the OGC Compliance 
> Program, including working on issues and improvements related to TEAM Engine 
> and the Executable Test Suites that power it.
> 
> Further information on the required services, as well as instructions for 
> bidders, are contained in the Invitation to Tender: Provision of Compliance 
> Testing Software Engineering Consulting Services 
> .
>  The deadline for responding to the ITT is 22:00hrs UTC on August 15th, 2021. 
> 
> More information about the OGC compliance process is available at 
> ogc.org/compliance 
> .
> 
> 
> About OGC
> The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is a collective problem-solving 
> community of experts from more than 500 businesses, government agencies, 
> research organizations, and universities driven to make geospatial (location) 
> information and services FAIR - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and 
> Reusable.
> The global OGC Community engages in a mix of activities related to 
> location-based technologies: developing consensus-based open standards and 
> best-practice; collaborating on agile innovation initiatives; engaging in 
> community meetings, events, and workshops; and more.
> OGC's unique standards development process moves at the pace of innovation, 
> with constant input from technology forecasting, practical prototyping, 
> real-world testing, and community engagement.
> OGC bridges disparate sectors, domains, and technology trends, and encourages 
> the cross-pollination of ideas between different communities of practice to 
> improve decision-making at all levels. OGC is committed to creating an 
> inclusive and sustainable future.
> Visit ogc.org for more info on our work.
> 
>  
> This press release is also available online at: 
> ogc.org/pressroom/pressreleases/4506 
> 
> EDITORS: When publishing this on your blog or website, we kindly request that 
> you link back to the above URL.
> The image used in the PR is available without text or logo here 
> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Statement on Community Standards

[Bruce Bannerman via Discuss]

Agreed Jody.

My preference is the Berlin Code of Conduct. It is short, succinct and says 
what we need to say in a number of languages.

Bruce

> On 1 Jun 2021, at 03:57, Jody Garnett via Discuss  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Astrid:
> 
> The page links to the code of conduct for several communities, but we no 
> longer have a single code of conduct as an organization. Indeed projects / 
> events / local chapters are able to choose an appropriate code of conduct - 
> just like we ask free and open source projects to choose an appropriate 
> license for their community.
> 
> Personally I recommend adopting one of the community managed code of conducts 
> (Berlin Code of Conduct or Contributor Covenant) since it is not a lot of fun 
> to write one of these things and keep it up to date. Or keep it simple, as 
> the bards once said: Be excellent to each other
> --
> Jody Garnett
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 at 23:18, Astrid Emde (OSGeo) via Discuss 
>>  wrote:
>> 2021-05-31
>> News Item: 
>> https://www.osgeo.org/foundation-news/osgeo-statement-on-community-standards/
>> 
>> The OSGeo Board of Directors issues this statement in response to recent 
>> events in the tech and global communities in relation to issues of 
>> inclusion, equity, and justice:
>> 
>> OSGeo strives to be an open, welcoming, and safe community and, to that 
>> end, we continue to work to improve how we treat all members of our 
>> community.  We believe our community is built on the collective of all 
>> of our actions and that each individual has an impact on whether people 
>> feel welcome.
>> 
>> OSGeo values the contributions of each and every member in all aspects 
>> of the organization, including (but not limited to) using and promoting 
>> open source geospatial software, contributing code, documentation, event 
>> speakers, participating in joint events with other organizations, or 
>> within  various committees.
>> 
>> All participants, regardless of how or where they participate in OSGeo 
>> activities, are expected to behave with integrity and respect for all 
>> people.  We encourage all members to review the Code of Conduct, make 
>> necessary adjustments to their behaviors as needed, and to discuss the 
>> Code of Conduct within committees and projects.
>> Code of conduct: https://www.osgeo.org/code_of_conduct/
>> 
>> OSGeo Board of Directors
>> ___
>> 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