Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Ica-osgeo-labs] Using Collective Knowledge for the Common Good
Thanks Charlie and Suchith!!! Best! Maria Prof. Maria Antonia Brovelli Vice Rector for Como Campus and GIS Professor Politecnico di Milano FOSS4G EUROPE - Don't miss it! Home ISPRS WG IV/5 Web and Cloud Based Geospatial Services and Applications; OSGeo; ICA-OSGeo-ISPRS Advisory Board; NASA WorldWind Europa Challenge; SIFET Via Natta, 12/14 - 22100 COMO (ITALY) Tel. +39-031-3327336 - Mob. +39-328-0023867 - fax. +39-031-3327321 e-mail1: maria.brove...@polimi.it e-mail2: prorettr...@como.polimi.it Il giorno 10/mar/2015, alle ore 18:51, Phillip Davis pda...@delmar.edu ha scritto: +1^10 for Charlie From: ica-osgeo-labs-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [ica-osgeo-labs-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Thomas [muel...@calu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:48 PM To: Suchith Anand; ica-osgeo-l...@lists.osgeo.org; discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [Ica-osgeo-labs] Using Collective Knowledge for the Common Good Congrats Charlie !!! Tom From: ica-osgeo-labs-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [ica-osgeo-labs-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Suchith Anand [suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:14 AM To: ica-osgeo-l...@lists.osgeo.org; discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: [Ica-osgeo-labs] Using Collective Knowledge for the Common Good Colleagues, Let me also take this opportunity to also thank Charlie and the whole GeoForAll - Global Educator of the Year Award 2015 committee for their help and inputs for this initiative which will have long term positive impacts in education efforts globally. I would like to also congratulate Charlie ( i just saw this today!) on his winning the international award honouring the late political economist Elinor Ostrom, the only woman to date to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. I am really grateful to Charlie's strong support for all our Open Geo Education efforts from the very start. On behalf of Geo for All' community, we are really proud and happy that Charlie has been recognised as one of the top 50 innovators in education for his cutting-edge use of open-source software in the classroom and as a research tool. Details at http://www.umass.edu/researchnext/feature/open-source Open Education Week is a great opportunity for all of us to reflect on the bigger purpose and join forces in using our collective knowledge to help open education opportunities to all to enable a better future for all. Best wishes, Suchith From: Anand Suchith Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:27 AM To: ica-osgeo-l...@lists.osgeo.org; discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: GeoForAll - Global Educator of the Year Award 2015 Dear colleagues, On the occasion of Open Education Week 2015 http://www.openeducationweek.org/ , Geo for All community http://www.geoforall.org would to like to thank all educators worldwide who have made contributions to open education efforts and being good global citizens by helping spread the benefits of education to all. We are very happy to announce the nominees for the GeoForAll - Global Educator of the Year Award 2015. This is an opportunity for us to thank colleagues for their excellent contributions to Openness in Education principles in the Geo domain. Congratulations to the following individuals or teams who received one or more nominations for the 2015 GeoForAll Global Educator of the Year Award In no particular order, the nominees are: INDIVIDUALS - Daniel Baldwin, Costa Rica International Academy, Costa Rica, for his course on “Mapping the Mangroves” [1] - Phil Davis, DelMar College, Texas, USA for his ongoing leadership and tireless efforts leading the creation of the GeoAcademy [2] - Genovevea Laurente, Consultora Calixto, Uruguay and gvSIG Batovi for the course “Sistemas de Información Geográfica con uso de datos abiertos orientado a la educación,” or in English, “Geographic Information Systems for Education using Open Data” [3] - Kurt Menke, Bird’s Eye View GIS, Alburquerque, NM, USA, for his Introduction to Open Source and Web Mapping course he developed for Central New Mexico Community College [4] - Sterling Quinn, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA, for his course on “Open Web Mapping” [5] - Giorgio Zamboni, Politecnico di Milano, Como campus, Italy for his “PoliCrowd: A Social Network App with NASA World Wind. [6] TEAMS - Environmental Information Centre GRID-Warsaw; UNEP/GRID Warsaw for their EduGIS Academy [7] - Open Source Geospatial Laboratory team at ETH Zurich, Switzerland for their Interactive Web Maps course [8] - Shashi Shekhar and Brent Hecht, Computer Science, University of Minnesota, USA for their Massive Open Online Course “From GPS and Google Maps to
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Whatever, I would like to achieve: 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? The still-callled-star system I started to work on, was inspired by Cameron notes (just FYI) J st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com napsal: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Bruce, your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now does not work (ergo should be fixed)? I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want PyWPS to be somehow part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions): 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation 4 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of clearing rationale as to what is broken? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)? Thanks Jachym čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com napsal: Hi Jody, The work keeps falling back on the same people… We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re trying to fix. I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. Bruce On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
