Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Angelos Tzotsos]

Hi,

One action item from a recent board meeting was to help review the 
community project rules.


Even has raised some interesting points some time ago and I think it 
would be valuable to follow up on this discussion with help from 
Incubation committee.


Some comments inline:

On 08/19/2017 03:39 PM, Even Rouault wrote:

Hi Angelos,

thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your 
proposal sounds
good to me. A few comments below.


I would like to propose a way forward:

1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with OSGeo
(as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)

Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are somewhat 
responsible
for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum criteria that are in the 
"OSGeo spirit"


A proposal for *new* rules:
* Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web in a
public place.

Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is released 
with an OSI
or FSF approved license and is available on the web in a public place."

I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as 
binaries, which makes
it not very convenient to modify :-)


I agree with the new phrasing.




* Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
license to really use it

Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see this 
criterion mentioned
in
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html

That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that would 
for example exclude
a Windows executable, since to use it you must own a Windows license... Even if 
you take a
Linux executable that is X/MIT licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is 
GPL licensed (but
as GNU libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL 
license to not apply
the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you take a Java 
program, it must run
within a JVM that comes with its own license. Same for Python, etc...


We definitely need to review the phrasing.
This is indeed something we do not check for graduation, perhaps just 
because we did not get an application with such issues.




But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental debates:
* is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released plugins 
of a
proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an exporter from 
proprietary formats/
projects to open source ones for example) ?
* Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary server 
(just saw in
LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether they should allow OSS 
software
that connect to proprietary services) ?
* What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary service 
?


Very interesting points.
In my opinion, we should make sure that we do not list projects that 
only require a proprietary server to work with. Even if they are fully 
open source, one would need to pay the server side to actually use them...




If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
* it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib  (poppler, GRASS, 
...)
* it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
* it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but don't 
require linking
against proprietary code
* other/most parts are fully useful on their own

So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.


Offering interaction with proprietary services/libraries is completely 
different from requiring them to work properly, so I do not see an issue 
with GDAL obviously :)





The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo
Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information
gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for maintaining
that information in the future)

+1

Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should the 
website of
this project  (or github page if no dedicated website) links to OSGeo one ? I'm 
not even sure
this is a requirement for a graduated project.

Even


I think that most graduated projects link to OSGeo. Perhaps we should 
look again as part of the project review the board is initiating.


Best,

Angelos


--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

This is a good discussion:

2) sometimes university labs are ALSO providing services. Shall we consider
>> this option and leave the possibility to the labs that are doing so to be
>> listed also here?
>>
>
> This is something we had not quite thought of. Seems a Geo for all lab
> should be able to choose to be cross listed as a service provider and also
> be listed in a project page. But quite sure how to accomplish this, but
> it's something we should implement. I'll file an issue.
>

> 3) using 'organisations' is a good idea, or at least I don't have a better
>> one. Let us see if somebody suggests something different.
>>
>
> Here we also start to head toward treating all organizations the same in
> the CMS and just indicating what type(s) they are to show in the
> appropriate place. This would take some rethinking of the site, but may
> make most sense long term.
>


Actually on this one I think they should just be listed twice, each page
has different information to communicate so if an organization is acting in
multiple roles they would be best served by having two pages.
- Someone looking for a service provider wants to focus on what projects an
organization is ready to help with.
- A visitor looking for a geoforall lab wants to focus on research and
academic accomplishments.

The text in the each can provide the cross link, or we can have a generic
page cross reference as is done for the partner and friend pages.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

That was actually the original requirement Jeff. I am having a hard time
explaining to get Interactive that the sort order "core contributor"
changes based on project. Even though we used the geoserver and qgis pages
as an example.

It is kind of working since they have that association for "core
contributors" on each project page, ideally I would like the link for
"more" to go to the service providers paged filtered and sorted for a
specific project.

--
Jody Garnett

On 22 August 2017 at 00:53, Jeff McKenna 
wrote:

> Hi Jody,
>
> For the MapServer project Service Providers page[1] that was created
> recently, we do not alienate or 'filter' out companies by size (of any
> number); instead we use the following options:
>
>   1. Core Contributors
>
>  Core Contributor organizations have project Committers and/or PSC
> members as part of their team and as such they are the closest to the core
> development of the software and are usually the best to go to for support.
>
>   2. Contributors
>
>  The Contributors listed here usually have power users and experienced
> integrators as part of their team who are recognized in the project
> community for their contributions to various aspects of the software over
> the years and are very well positioned to assist you with the project.
>
>   3. Other Service Providers
>
>  The service providers in this category offer services around the
> project and related Open Source technologies.
>
>
> So maybe this is a better way to 'filter' by organization type.  This
> would be my second proposal (actually this one makes better sense for the
> new OSGeo site, than my original 4 proposed options).
>
> [1] http://mapserver.org/community/service_providers.html
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-08-21 8:09 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
>> to summarize.
>>
>> 1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
>> size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
>> them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont think
>> this piece of data is all that important anyway. I think we originally
>> conceived of it to be able to separate out individual consultants and
>> small companies from larger ones. I know in my experience when looking
>> for a service provider, often I am specifically looking for small ones
>> or individual consultants because Im not interested in dealing with
>> big organizations. In any case, this service provider section should
>> be open to any and all organizations (from one person consultancies to
>> large organizations) that want to provide services for hire on OSGeo
>> or other open source geospatial projects. Its not that important to
>> *me* that we collect what size they are, but it may be useful to
>> others to know what size they are when looking for help.
>>
>> 2) JeffM is proposing we ask for the organization *type* here instead
>> of size and be inclusive of other types of organizations than just
>> companies. Im all for being as inclusive as we can, but this section
>> of the site was specifically intended as a place where one could find
>> organizations or individual consultants *for hire* to work on/with the
>> projects. As Jody mentions, there are lots of NGOs and government orgs
>> who would like to be listed somewhere on our site, but are NOT looking
>> for work. The converse is also true, there are lots of NGOs and and
>> perhaps even government agencies who are willing to do work for hire
>> and would like to be listed here as a service provider.
>>
>> 3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
>> list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
>> Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
>> they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
>> listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
>> need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
>> classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
>> contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
>> 'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
>> GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
>> of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.
>>
>> Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
>> solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
>> community big or small to show off their work and make sure its linked
>> to other content types (projects, resources, news etc) appropriately.
>> This is of course a bit hard because we have such a diverse group of
>> stakeholders, but Im confident we can work through it.
>>
>> Jachym, just making sure you are happy with how OpenGeoLabs is currently
>> listed?
>>
>> Kurt Menke if you are on this list, I intended to move Birds Eye GIS
>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:58 Andrea Aime 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Polimi  wrote:
>
>> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
>> to be a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ
>> said, if somebody is alienated we can skip it. We have just to better
>> discuss this 'if'.
>>
>
> Just sharing my two cents...
>
> From a project/community standpoint one wants to put front and center the
> people, companies and
> organizations that are the lifeblood of the community, those that are
> contributing code, documentation,
> advocating and helping users. Personally I'd keep it as a primary
> classifier, failing to do so might divert
> financial resources from the parts of the community that deserve and need
> it the most.
>
> From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may
> also be important, a larger company
> typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
> contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience
> among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a
> certain experience with the provider
> (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more
> industrial vs the more "boutique"
> approach).
> So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other
> information, even if it is
> not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to
> lessen the chore of maintaing such
> information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud
> here)
>

It's easy enough to change the classes to these numbers.



> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> ==
> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
> http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
> ==
>
> Ing. Andrea Aime
> @geowolf
> Technical Lead
>
> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
> Via di Montramito 3/A
> 55054  Massarosa (LU)
> phone: +39 0584 962313
> fax: +39 0584 1660272
> mob: +39  339 8844549
>
> http://www.geo-solutions.it
> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>
> AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
>
> Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
> nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
> loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
> per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
> messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
> darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
> stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
> divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
> utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
> principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
>
> The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
> the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
> proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
> (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
> Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
> copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
> strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
> immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
> information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
> does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
> completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes
> made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
> e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:27 Polimi  wrote:

> Thank you all for your proposals and discussion. I' m currently in
> holidays and therefore I want just to propose some short comments.
> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
> to be a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ
> said, if somebody is alienated we can skip it. We have just to better
> discuss this 'if'.
> 2) sometimes university labs are ALSO providing services. Shall we
> consider this option and leave the possibility to the labs that are doing
> so to be listed also here?
>

This is something we had not quite thought of. Seems a Geo for all lab
should be able to choose to be cross listed as a service provider and also
be listed in a project page. But quite sure how to accomplish this, but
it's something we should implement. I'll file an issue.

3) using 'organisations' is a good idea, or at least I don't have a better
> one. Let us see if somebody suggests something different.
>

Here we also start to head toward treating all organizations the same in
the CMS and just indicating what type(s) they are to show in the
appropriate place. This would take some rethinking of the site, but may
make most sense long term.

Thanks again, above all JeffJ!
> Best regards!
> Maria
>
>
> Pay attention to this Special Issue and see if it is of interest by you:
>
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi/special_issues/Geospatial_Big_Data_Urban_Studies
>
>
>
>
>
> **
>
> *Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli*
>
> Professor of GIS and Remote Sensing
> Politecnico di Milano
>
>
>
> ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)"
> http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html, Board of Directors
> of OSGeo; GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET
> Advisory Board
>
>
>
> UN-GGIM Italy, UN-GGIM Academic Network Task Team, UN OpenGIS Initiative
> (Chair of the Capacity Building WG)
>
>
>
> *Sol Katz Award 2015*
>
>
>
> P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)
>
> Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,  maria.brove...@polimi.it
>
>
>
> Il giorno 22 ago 2017, alle ore 02:09, Jeffrey Johnson 
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
> to summarize.
>
> 1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
> size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
> them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont think
> this piece of data is all that important anyway. I think we originally
> conceived of it to be able to separate out individual consultants and
> small companies from larger ones. I know in my experience when looking
> for a service provider, often I am specifically looking for small ones
> or individual consultants because Im not interested in dealing with
> big organizations. In any case, this service provider section should
> be open to any and all organizations (from one person consultancies to
> large organizations) that want to provide services for hire on OSGeo
> or other open source geospatial projects. Its not that important to
> *me* that we collect what size they are, but it may be useful to
> others to know what size they are when looking for help.
>
> 2) JeffM is proposing we ask for the organization *type* here instead
> of size and be inclusive of other types of organizations than just
> companies. Im all for being as inclusive as we can, but this section
> of the site was specifically intended as a place where one could find
> organizations or individual consultants *for hire* to work on/with the
> projects. As Jody mentions, there are lots of NGOs and government orgs
> who would like to be listed somewhere on our site, but are NOT looking
> for work. The converse is also true, there are lots of NGOs and and
> perhaps even government agencies who are willing to do work for hire
> and would like to be listed here as a service provider.
>
> 3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
> list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
> Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
> they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
> listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
> need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
> classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
> contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
> 'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
> GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
> of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.
>
> Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
> solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
> community big or small to show off t

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

In fact this should be implemented. Not sure how we overlooked this. Jachym
can you file an issue for this?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 00:37 Jachym Cepicky 
wrote:

> Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
> people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign to
> projects? After all, it's all about people, isn't it?
>
> Again, maybe it is in cotradiction with some principle, I'm missing
>
> J
>
> út 22. 8. 2017 v 2:58 odesílatel Jeffrey Johnson 
> napsal:
>
>> 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
>>  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 
>> > 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
>> >>  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>>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hi Jachym,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yes I agree, it is a slippery slope that once we/OSGeo decide
>> that
>> >>> > size
>> >>> >   

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

JeffM,

It seems you are making a leap from asking service providers how big they
are to this alienating them or somehow excluding ones of a certain size
(big or small it's not clear). Can you explain the thoughts behind your
argument here? I think the rest of us are saying that everyone should be
included and that being small is often a strength.

Thanks everyone for speaking up!

Jeff


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:06 andrea antonello 
wrote:

> As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents.
>
> [...]
> > From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may
> also
> > be important, a larger company
> > typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
> > contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience
> > among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a
> > certain experience with the provider
> > (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more
> > industrial vs the more "boutique"
> > approach).
> > So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other
> > information, even if it is
> > not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to
> lessen
> > the chore of maintaing such
> > information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud
> > here)
>
> I agree with Andrea. I do not feel alienated due to the size of my
> company. In fact many times the size is a choice and it might even be
> a positive factor for certain scenarios.
>
> I like the classes approach proposed here.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[andrea antonello]

As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents.

[...]
> From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may also
> be important, a larger company
> typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
> contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience
> among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a
> certain experience with the provider
> (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more
> industrial vs the more "boutique"
> approach).
> So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other
> information, even if it is
> not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to lessen
> the chore of maintaing such
> information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud
> here)

I agree with Andrea. I do not feel alienated due to the size of my
company. In fact many times the size is a choice and it might even be
a positive factor for certain scenarios.

I like the classes approach proposed here.

Cheers,
Andrea
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Andrea Aime]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Polimi  wrote:

> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
> to be a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ
> said, if somebody is alienated we can skip it. We have just to better
> discuss this 'if'.
>

Just sharing my two cents...

>From a project/community standpoint one wants to put front and center the
people, companies and
organizations that are the lifeblood of the community, those that are
contributing code, documentation,
advocating and helping users. Personally I'd keep it as a primary
classifier, failing to do so might divert
financial resources from the parts of the community that deserve and need
it the most.

>From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may
also be important, a larger company
typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience
among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a
certain experience with the provider
(e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more
industrial vs the more "boutique"
approach).
So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other
information, even if it is
not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to lessen
the chore of maintaing such
information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud
here)

Cheers
Andrea

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V
for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003

Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Polimi]

Thank you all for your proposals and discussion. I' m currently in holidays and 
therefore I want just to propose some short comments.
1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative to be 
a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ said, if 
somebody is alienated we can skip it. We have just to better discuss this 'if'.
2) sometimes university labs are ALSO providing services. Shall we consider 
this option and leave the possibility to the labs that are doing so to be 
listed also here?
3) using 'organisations' is a good idea, or at least I don't have a better one. 
Let us see if somebody suggests something different.
Thanks again, above all JeffJ!
Best regards!
Maria


Pay attention to this Special Issue and see if it is of interest by you:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi/special_issues/Geospatial_Big_Data_Urban_Studies
 
 

Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli
Professor of GIS and Remote Sensing
Politecnico di Milano
 
ISPRS WG IV/4"Collaborative crowdsourced cloud mapping (C3M)" 
http://www2.isprs.org/commissions/comm4/wg4.html, Board of Directors of OSGeo; 
GeoForAll Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET Advisory Board
 
UN-GGIM Italy, UN-GGIM Academic Network Task Team, UN OpenGIS Initiative (Chair 
of the Capacity Building WG)
 
Sol Katz Award 2015
 
P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32 - Building 3 - 20133 Milano (Italy)
Tel. +39-02-23996242 - Mob. +39-328-0023867,  maria.brove...@polimi.it


> Il giorno 22 ago 2017, alle ore 02:09, Jeffrey Johnson  
> ha scritto:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
> to summarize.
> 
> 1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
> size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
> them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont think
> this piece of data is all that important anyway. I think we originally
> conceived of it to be able to separate out individual consultants and
> small companies from larger ones. I know in my experience when looking
> for a service provider, often I am specifically looking for small ones
> or individual consultants because Im not interested in dealing with
> big organizations. In any case, this service provider section should
> be open to any and all organizations (from one person consultancies to
> large organizations) that want to provide services for hire on OSGeo
> or other open source geospatial projects. Its not that important to
> *me* that we collect what size they are, but it may be useful to
> others to know what size they are when looking for help.
> 
> 2) JeffM is proposing we ask for the organization *type* here instead
> of size and be inclusive of other types of organizations than just
> companies. Im all for being as inclusive as we can, but this section
> of the site was specifically intended as a place where one could find
> organizations or individual consultants *for hire* to work on/with the
> projects. As Jody mentions, there are lots of NGOs and government orgs
> who would like to be listed somewhere on our site, but are NOT looking
> for work. The converse is also true, there are lots of NGOs and and
> perhaps even government agencies who are willing to do work for hire
> and would like to be listed here as a service provider.
> 
> 3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
> list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
> Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
> they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
> listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
> need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
> classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
> contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
> 'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
> GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
> of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.
> 
> Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
> solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
> community big or small to show off their work and make sure its linked
> to other content types (projects, resources, news etc) appropriately.
> This is of course a bit hard because we have such a diverse group of
> stakeholders, but Im confident we can work through it.
> 
> Jachym, just making sure you are happy with how OpenGeoLabs is currently 
> listed?
> 
> Kurt Menke if you are on this list, I intended to move Birds Eye GIS
> from being listed as a GeoForAll Lab to being a Service Provider and
> realize I got interrupted in the middle of doing it on Saturday and
> now its simply deleted. Ill reach out to you personally to make sure
> you get re-added in the right place

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Jody,

For the MapServer project Service Providers page[1] that was created 
recently, we do not alienate or 'filter' out companies by size (of any 
number); instead we use the following options:


  1. Core Contributors

 Core Contributor organizations have project Committers and/or PSC 
members as part of their team and as such they are the closest to the 
core development of the software and are usually the best to go to for 
support.


  2. Contributors

 The Contributors listed here usually have power users and 
experienced integrators as part of their team who are recognized in the 
project community for their contributions to various aspects of the 
software over the years and are very well positioned to assist you with 
the project.


  3. Other Service Providers

 The service providers in this category offer services around the 
project and related Open Source technologies.



So maybe this is a better way to 'filter' by organization type.  This 
would be my second proposal (actually this one makes better sense for 
the new OSGeo site, than my original 4 proposed options).


[1] http://mapserver.org/community/service_providers.html

-jeff




On 2017-08-21 8:09 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Hi All,

I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
to summarize.

1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont think
this piece of data is all that important anyway. I think we originally
conceived of it to be able to separate out individual consultants and
small companies from larger ones. I know in my experience when looking
for a service provider, often I am specifically looking for small ones
or individual consultants because Im not interested in dealing with
big organizations. In any case, this service provider section should
be open to any and all organizations (from one person consultancies to
large organizations) that want to provide services for hire on OSGeo
or other open source geospatial projects. Its not that important to
*me* that we collect what size they are, but it may be useful to
others to know what size they are when looking for help.

2) JeffM is proposing we ask for the organization *type* here instead
of size and be inclusive of other types of organizations than just
companies. Im all for being as inclusive as we can, but this section
of the site was specifically intended as a place where one could find
organizations or individual consultants *for hire* to work on/with the
projects. As Jody mentions, there are lots of NGOs and government orgs
who would like to be listed somewhere on our site, but are NOT looking
for work. The converse is also true, there are lots of NGOs and and
perhaps even government agencies who are willing to do work for hire
and would like to be listed here as a service provider.

3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.

Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
community big or small to show off their work and make sure its linked
to other content types (projects, resources, news etc) appropriately.
This is of course a bit hard because we have such a diverse group of
stakeholders, but Im confident we can work through it.

Jachym, just making sure you are happy with how OpenGeoLabs is currently listed?

Kurt Menke if you are on this list, I intended to move Birds Eye GIS
from being listed as a GeoForAll Lab to being a Service Provider and
realize I got interrupted in the middle of doing it on Saturday and
now its simply deleted. Ill reach out to you personally to make sure
you get re-added in the right place.

Also, I realize
http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/geo-for-all-labs/attivarti-org/ is
another example of an organization that probably belongs in a new
section as described in 3)

Jeff

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:

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 de

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[María Arias de Reyna]

Makes sense. So you can see on the service providers who are the ones
with more contributors.

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Jachym Cepicky
 wrote:
> Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
> people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign to
> projects? After all, it's all about people, isn't it?
>
> Again, maybe it is in cotradiction with some principle, I'm missing
>
> J
>
> út 22. 8. 2017 v 2:58 odesílatel Jeffrey Johnson 
> napsal:
>>
>> 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
>>  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 
>> > 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
>> >>  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
>> >>> > > >>> > >
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hi Jachym,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yes I agree, it is a sl

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign to
projects? After all, it's all about people, isn't it?

Again, maybe it is in cotradiction with some principle, I'm missing

J

út 22. 8. 2017 v 2:58 odesílatel Jeffrey Johnson 
napsal:

> 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
>  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 
> > 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
> >>  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
> >>> > 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 th

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

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
 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 
> 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
>>  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
>>> > 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 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

> 3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
> list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
> Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
> they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
> listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
> need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
> classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
> contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
> 'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
> GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
> of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.
>

See earlier, should be listed under Partners and Friends. List sorted so
that partners (MOU or other biz relationship) is sorted higher then people
we think are really cool and help further our objectives (like
OpenStreetMap which we promote as a source of open data).

I really like the "Partners and Friends" title, but we can rename it to
organizations / organisations if that makes everyone feel happy.

Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
> solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
> community big or small to show off their work and make sure its linked
> to other content types (projects, resources, news etc) appropriately.
> This is of course a bit hard because we have such a diverse group of
> stakeholders, but Im confident we can work through it.
>

Very much agree. We also need to keep in mind that this website is for
visitors who are not yet part of our community. Steven called me out on
this several times on the weekend when rewriting our home page. So hard to
sneak a "how to help" button in, rather than a "how we can help you".

Jachym, just making sure you are happy with how OpenGeoLabs is currently
> listed?
>

Poor Jachym I was just trying to ask a question :)
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

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 
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
>> > 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.
>> >

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

Hi All,

I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
to summarize.

1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont think
this piece of data is all that important anyway. I think we originally
conceived of it to be able to separate out individual consultants and
small companies from larger ones. I know in my experience when looking
for a service provider, often I am specifically looking for small ones
or individual consultants because Im not interested in dealing with
big organizations. In any case, this service provider section should
be open to any and all organizations (from one person consultancies to
large organizations) that want to provide services for hire on OSGeo
or other open source geospatial projects. Its not that important to
*me* that we collect what size they are, but it may be useful to
others to know what size they are when looking for help.

2) JeffM is proposing we ask for the organization *type* here instead
of size and be inclusive of other types of organizations than just
companies. Im all for being as inclusive as we can, but this section
of the site was specifically intended as a place where one could find
organizations or individual consultants *for hire* to work on/with the
projects. As Jody mentions, there are lots of NGOs and government orgs
who would like to be listed somewhere on our site, but are NOT looking
for work. The converse is also true, there are lots of NGOs and and
perhaps even government agencies who are willing to do work for hire
and would like to be listed here as a service provider.

3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
listed somewhere. CSIRO comes to mind as an example. I think we DO
need to think of perhaps a new content type to capture these and
classify them appropriately and let them link to the projects they
contribute to, resources they may have created etc. Perhaps just an
'Organizations' section that is much like the 'Service Providers' and
GeoForAll labs, but is listed separately under Community, I can think
of a lot of organizations who would be interested to be listed here.

Hoping we can all agree on what we are talking about here and find a
solution. I really want to find a place for *every* member of our
community big or small to show off their work and make sure its linked
to other content types (projects, resources, news etc) appropriately.
This is of course a bit hard because we have such a diverse group of
stakeholders, but Im confident we can work through it.

Jachym, just making sure you are happy with how OpenGeoLabs is currently listed?

Kurt Menke if you are on this list, I intended to move Birds Eye GIS
from being listed as a GeoForAll Lab to being a Service Provider and
realize I got interrupted in the middle of doing it on Saturday and
now its simply deleted. Ill reach out to you personally to make sure
you get re-added in the right place.

Also, I realize
http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/geo-for-all-labs/attivarti-org/ is
another example of an organization that probably belongs in a new
section as described in 3)

Jeff

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:
> 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 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jody,
>>
>> By alienating the smaller OSGeo 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

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 
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
> > 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
> >  >  > 
> >  > 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

Yeah does not appear to be hooked up yet the news - good note about the
sponsors - we should add to the issue tracker if you have not done so
already.

Aside: When I made a partner page I could hook up some events, projects,
resources.

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 August 2017 at 17:52, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> specifically this page, it's company, we are more people (about 5-7 - I do
> cover the accounting and paper work) - but it's official "ltd."
>
> I'm happy with the content (as I can only be) - do you have any problem
> with that?
>
> What IMHO does not work: the News are not clearly separated, it seems,
> they belong to the company - but they don't. Same applies to sponsors -
> some graphical element (ruler?) would make it more separated
>
> Thanks
>
> J
>
>
> po 21. 8. 2017 v 23:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett 
> napsal:
>
>> 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)
>>
>> Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news
>> items (checking now they do not really let us shortlist news or resources
>> yet)
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>>>
>>> just noting
>>>
>>> j
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett  wrote:
>>>
 That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick
 review" is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how
 this discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
 "foss4g") projects in the future.

 One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
 open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
 several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
 heard of).



 --
 Jody Garnett

 On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky 
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>
> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
> and approval process
>
> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
> you to community project
>
> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
> among "Other projects", not community
>
> hope, it's ok?
>
> J
>
>
>
> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
> napsal:
>
>> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>>
>> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
>> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
>> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
>> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
>> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open 
>> standards
>> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
>> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate 
>> license).
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Angelos,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
>>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated
>>> with OSGeo
>>>
>>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache,
>>> Eclipse)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
>>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some 
>>> minimum
>>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the
>>> web in a
>>>
>>> > public place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
>>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the 
>>> web in
>>> a public place."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released
>>> only as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
>>> anot

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

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 
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
 > 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

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 
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
> > 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

-- 
--
Jody Garnett
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

Jachym, to clarify: any organization should be able to advertise their 
services for an OSGeo project, whether they are a non-profit or a 
research entity or a private company etc.  That is how my proposal 
avoids separating OSGeo organizations by size.


-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 
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

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 
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

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 
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeff McKenna]

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,

specifically this page, it's company, we are more people (about 5-7 - I do
cover the accounting and paper work) - but it's official "ltd."

I'm happy with the content (as I can only be) - do you have any problem
with that?

What IMHO does not work: the News are not clearly separated, it seems, they
belong to the company - but they don't. Same applies to sponsors - some
graphical element (ruler?) would make it more separated

Thanks

J


po 21. 8. 2017 v 23:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett 
napsal:

> 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)
>
> Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news
> items (checking now they do not really let us shortlist news or resources
> yet)
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky 
> wrote:
>
>> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>>
>> just noting
>>
>> j
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett  wrote:
>>
>>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
>>> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
>>> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
>>> "foss4g") projects in the future.
>>>
>>> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
>>> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
>>> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
>>> heard of).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
 projects" on the new OSGeo web page

 I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
 and approval process

 IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
 appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
 peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
 you to community project

 example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
 http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
 among "Other projects", not community

 hope, it's ok?

 J



 ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
 napsal:

> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>
> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open 
> standards
> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate 
> license).
>
> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Angelos,
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated
>> with OSGeo
>>
>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some 
>> minimum
>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>>
>>
>>
>> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>>
>>
>>
>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the
>> web in a
>>
>> > public place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web 
>> in
>> a public place."
>>
>>
>>
>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only
>> as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
>> another
>>
>> > license to really use it
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't
>> see this criterion mentioned in
>>
>>
>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>
>>
>>
>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this,
>> that would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you
>> must own a Windows licens

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

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)

Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news
items (checking now they do not really let us shortlist news or resources
yet)

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:

> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>
> just noting
>
> j
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett  wrote:
>
>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
>> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
>> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
>> "foss4g") projects in the future.
>>
>> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
>> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
>> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
>> heard of).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
>>> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>>>
>>> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
>>> and approval process
>>>
>>> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
>>> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
>>> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
>>> you to community project
>>>
>>> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
>>> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
>>> among "Other projects", not community
>>>
>>> hope, it's ok?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
>>> napsal:
>>>
 I generally agree with Even's comments.

 W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
 question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
 intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
 reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
 be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
 based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
 pointless without a running server which requires its own separate 
 license).

 On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" 
 wrote:

> Hi Angelos,
>
>
>
> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>
> >
>
> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated
> with OSGeo
>
> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>
>
>
> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum
> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>
>
>
> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>
>
>
> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web
> in a
>
> > public place.
>
>
>
> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web 
> in
> a public place."
>
>
>
> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only
> as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>
>
>
> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
> another
>
> > license to really use it
>
>
>
> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't
> see this criterion mentioned in
>
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_
> graduation_checklist.html
>
>
>
> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
> license. Same for Python, etc...
>
>
>
> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
> debates:
>
> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
>

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

My bad, it is hard to keep up with so many amazing contributors :)

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:

> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>
> just noting
>
> j
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett  wrote:
>
>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
>> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
>> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
>> "foss4g") projects in the future.
>>
>> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
>> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
>> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
>> heard of).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
>>> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>>>
>>> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
>>> and approval process
>>>
>>> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
>>> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
>>> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
>>> you to community project
>>>
>>> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
>>> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
>>> among "Other projects", not community
>>>
>>> hope, it's ok?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
>>> napsal:
>>>
 I generally agree with Even's comments.

 W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
 question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
 intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
 reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
 be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
 based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
 pointless without a running server which requires its own separate 
 license).

 On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" 
 wrote:

> Hi Angelos,
>
>
>
> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>
> >
>
> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated
> with OSGeo
>
> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>
>
>
> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum
> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>
>
>
> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>
>
>
> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web
> in a
>
> > public place.
>
>
>
> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web 
> in
> a public place."
>
>
>
> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only
> as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>
>
>
> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
> another
>
> > license to really use it
>
>
>
> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't
> see this criterion mentioned in
>
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_
> graduation_checklist.html
>
>
>
> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
> license. Same for Python, etc...
>
>
>
> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
> debates:
>
> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
> exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for 
> example)
> ?
>
> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary
> server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating 
> wheth

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

afaik it was Vasile's overview

just noting

j

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett  wrote:

> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
> "foss4g") projects in the future.
>
> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
> heard of).
>
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
>> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>>
>> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
>> and approval process
>>
>> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
>> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
>> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
>> you to community project
>>
>> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
>> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
>> among "Other projects", not community
>>
>> hope, it's ok?
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
>> napsal:
>>
>>> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>>>
>>> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
>>> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
>>> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
>>> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
>>> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
>>> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
>>> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate license).
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Angelos,



 thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
 your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.



 >

 > I would like to propose a way forward:

 >

 > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with
 OSGeo

 > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)



 Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
 somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum
 criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"



 > A proposal for *new* rules:



 > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web
 in a

 > public place.



 Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
 released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in
 a public place."



 I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only
 as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)



 > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
 another

 > license to really use it



 Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see
 this criterion mentioned in

 http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html



 That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
 would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
 own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
 licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
 libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
 to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
 take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
 license. Same for Python, etc...



 But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
 debates:

 * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
 plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
 exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for example)
 ?

 * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary
 server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether
 they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary services) ?

 * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary
 service ?



 If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:

 * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jody Garnett]

That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review" is
the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
"foss4g") projects in the future.

One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of open
source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
heard of).



--
Jody Garnett

On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>
> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules and
> approval process
>
> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project appear
> on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be peer-reviewed by
> some of the page administrators, but that would not make you to community
> project
>
> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
> among "Other projects", not community
>
> hope, it's ok?
>
> J
>
>
>
> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
> napsal:
>
>> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>>
>> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
>> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
>> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
>> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
>> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
>> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
>> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate license).
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Angelos,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
>>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with
>>> OSGeo
>>>
>>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
>>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum
>>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web
>>> in a
>>>
>>> > public place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
>>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in
>>> a public place."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as
>>> binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
>>>
>>> > license to really use it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see
>>> this criterion mentioned in
>>>
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
>>> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
>>> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
>>> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
>>> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
>>> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
>>> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
>>> license. Same for Python, etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
>>> debates:
>>>
>>> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
>>> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
>>> exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for example)
>>> ?
>>>
>>> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary
>>> server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether
>>> they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary services) ?
>>>
>>> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary
>>> service ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
>>>
>>> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib (poppler,
>>> GRASS, ...)
>>>
>>> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
>>>
>>> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but
>>> don't require linking against proprietary code
>>>
>>> * other/most parts are fully useful on

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,

just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
projects" on the new OSGeo web page

I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules and
approval process

IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project appear
on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be peer-reviewed by
some of the page administrators, but that would not make you to community
project

example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed among
"Other projects", not community

hope, it's ok?

J



ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen 
napsal:

> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>
> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate license).
>
> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Angelos,
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your
>> proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with
>> OSGeo
>>
>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are somewhat
>> responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum criteria
>> that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>>
>>
>>
>> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>>
>>
>>
>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web in
>> a
>>
>> > public place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in
>> a public place."
>>
>>
>>
>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as
>> binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
>>
>> > license to really use it
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see
>> this criterion mentioned in
>>
>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>
>>
>>
>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
>> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
>> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
>> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
>> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
>> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
>> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
>> license. Same for Python, etc...
>>
>>
>>
>> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
>> debates:
>>
>> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
>> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
>> exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for example)
>> ?
>>
>> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary
>> server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether
>> they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary services) ?
>>
>> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary
>> service ?
>>
>>
>>
>> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
>>
>> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib (poppler,
>> GRASS, ...)
>>
>> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
>>
>> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but
>> don't require linking against proprietary code
>>
>> * other/most parts are fully useful on their own
>>
>>
>>
>> So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo
>>
>> > Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information
>>
>> > gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for
>> maintaining
>>
>> > that information in the future)
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should
>> the website of this project (or github page if no dedicated website) links
>> to OSGeo one ? I'm not even sure this is a requirement for a graduated
>> project.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Spatialys - Geospatial

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[James Klassen]

I generally agree with Even's comments.

W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a question
about how this would apply to free software that is mostly intended to
operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable reading
proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only be used
with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards based
web services (where you only control the client but the client is pointless
without a running server which requires its own separate license).

On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault"  wrote:

> Hi Angelos,
>
>
>
> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your
> proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>
> >
>
> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with
> OSGeo
>
> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>
>
>
> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are somewhat
> responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum criteria
> that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>
>
>
> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>
>
>
> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web in a
>
> > public place.
>
>
>
> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in
> a public place."
>
>
>
> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as
> binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>
>
>
> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
>
> > license to really use it
>
>
>
> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see
> this criterion mentioned in
>
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
>
>
> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that
> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must
> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT
> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU
> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license
> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you
> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own
> license. Same for Python, etc...
>
>
>
> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
> debates:
>
> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released
> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an
> exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for example)
> ?
>
> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary
> server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether
> they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary services) ?
>
> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary
> service ?
>
>
>
> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
>
> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib (poppler,
> GRASS, ...)
>
> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
>
> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but
> don't require linking against proprietary code
>
> * other/most parts are fully useful on their own
>
>
>
> So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.
>
>
>
> > The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo
>
> > Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information
>
> > gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for maintaining
>
> > that information in the future)
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should
> the website of this project (or github page if no dedicated website) links
> to OSGeo one ? I'm not even sure this is a requirement for a graduated
> project.
>
>
>
> Even
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

Hi Angelos and Even,

Thanks for enlightening us with  very thoughtful and pertinent points
and comments.

It would be great to have a broader view on this
and hope to hear from others in our community.

Best

Venka

P.S. Even, congratulations on your 10 years + 2 days since
your first commit to GDAL project!! Many thanks!

On 8/19/2017 9:39 PM, Even Rouault wrote:

Hi Angelos,

thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your 
proposal sounds
good to me. A few comments below.


I would like to propose a way forward:

1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with OSGeo
(as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)

Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are somewhat 
responsible
for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum criteria that are in the 
"OSGeo spirit"


A proposal for *new* rules:
* Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web in a
public place.

Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is released 
with an OSI
or FSF approved license and is available on the web in a public place."

I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as 
binaries, which makes
it not very convenient to modify :-)


* Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
license to really use it

Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see this 
criterion mentioned
in
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html

That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that would 
for example exclude
a Windows executable, since to use it you must own a Windows license... Even if 
you take a
Linux executable that is X/MIT licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is 
GPL licensed (but
as GNU libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL 
license to not apply
the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you take a Java 
program, it must run
within a JVM that comes with its own license. Same for Python, etc...

But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental debates:
* is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released plugins 
of a
proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an exporter from 
proprietary formats/
projects to open source ones for example) ?
* Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary server 
(just saw in
LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether they should allow OSS 
software
that connect to proprietary services) ?
* What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary service 
?

If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
* it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib  (poppler, GRASS, 
...)
* it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
* it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but don't 
require linking
against proprietary code
* other/most parts are fully useful on their own

So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.


The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo
Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information
gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for maintaining
that information in the future)

+1

Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should the 
website of
this project  (or github page if no dedicated website) links to OSGeo one ? I'm 
not even sure
this is a requirement for a graduated project.

Even




___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Even Rouault]

Hi Angelos,

thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your 
proposal sounds 
good to me. A few comments below.

> 
> I would like to propose a way forward:
> 
> 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with OSGeo
> (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)

Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are somewhat 
responsible 
for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum criteria that are in the 
"OSGeo spirit"

> A proposal for *new* rules:

> * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web in a
> public place.

Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is released 
with an OSI 
or FSF approved license and is available on the web in a public place."

I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as 
binaries, which makes 
it not very convenient to modify :-)

> * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another
> license to really use it

Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see this 
criterion mentioned 
in
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html

That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that would 
for example exclude 
a Windows executable, since to use it you must own a Windows license... Even if 
you take a 
Linux executable that is X/MIT licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is 
GPL licensed (but 
as GNU libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL 
license to not apply 
the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you take a Java 
program, it must run 
within a JVM that comes with its own license. Same for Python, etc...

But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental debates:
* is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released plugins 
of a 
proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an exporter from 
proprietary formats/
projects to open source ones for example) ?
* Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary server 
(just saw in 
LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether they should allow OSS 
software 
that connect to proprietary services) ?
* What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary service 
?

If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
* it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib  (poppler, GRASS, 
...)
* it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
* it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but don't 
require linking 
against proprietary code
* other/most parts are fully useful on their own

So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.

> The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo
> Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information
> gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for maintaining
> that information in the future)

+1

Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should the 
website of 
this project  (or github page if no dedicated website) links to OSGeo one ? I'm 
not even sure 
this is a requirement for a graduated project.

Even


-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss