Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proprietary GIS on our OSGeo website

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

As a regular user of proprietary GIS software (ArcGIS, FME, Oracle 
Spatial etcetera) I can assure that it is very valuable to have some 
sort of guidance in the diversity of the FOSS landscape.


I agree that "similar proprietary products" isn't the right label. 
However, instead of the proposed "migratte from" (which sound like a 
complete migration plan) I'd suggest the label "comparable proprietary 
software".


Kind regards,

Gert-Jan



María Arias de Reyna schreef op 21-09-2017 8:30:
On 20 September 2017 at 02:41, Helmut Kudrnovsky  
wrote:


Dear OSGeo community

I want to bring you a discussion on a github ticket about linking to
"similar proprietary products" [1] to your attention.

My comment there:

"I support and concur with Venka that the item "Similar Proprietary
Products" should be removed. There isn't only one proprietary GIS 
software
out there, there are several others. IMHO such comparisons may be 
part of
e.g. a reviewed scientific paper/elaboration, where our OSGeo 
projects - if
they want to - may link to. I see no added value for OSGeo to serve 
such
links. As already elsewhere mentioned by me, reciprocity is the key 
if such

items are listed, but I can't see this happen. "

I'm pretty much convinced that more effort to help our OSGeo 
projects
improving on every level (e.g. documentation, reach out, testing, 
etc) is

the key rather than linking to proprietary software. One of such
opportunities may be the upcoming Google Code In (GCI) 2017 e.g. to 
produce
nice screenshots for documentation, produce some fancy videos etc. 
based on
tiny little tasks for students aged 13 to 17. A good invest in the 
young who

will be our OSGeo's future.

Kind regards
Helmut
OSGeo charter member

[1] https://github.com/OSGeo/osgeo/issues/100
[2] 
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2017-September/036217.html

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





Hi,

On my opinion, it makes sense to show relation between propietary and
free and open software. Just because we want to people to migrate to
free and open source software, so it is good if they can search for
the software they are currently using to know what software will they
use. It makes sense, it makes life easier on migrations.

Said this, I prefer the "Migrate from" label much better. And sure, no
link to the product, just the name. Why would we need a link? If they
don't know what that software is, the information is useless to them.
If they already know what that software is, the information is
redundant. So having a name is fine, having a link is nonsense.

Is "Migrate from" label aggresive? Not at all. We are OsGeo, we are
promoting FLOSS. Promoting FLOSS means we are encouraging people to
move from propietary to open. That is our philosophy, that is our
motto. If propietary software feels bad because we follow our goals...
well, then maybe they should stop promoting their own software too
because that makes me feel bad.

Regards,
María.
___
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] Reducing scope of OSGeo-Live for next 11.0 release

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Hi OSGeo-Live team and others,


1. Frequency
In order to reduce the workload one might consider to lower the release 
frequency to a yearly base.
(In which case I'd also suggest to name the version after their year of 
release: "OSGeo Live 2017" etc..)
For my purposes it doesn't add much value to have a new version every 6 
months.



2. In/exclude projects
Given the fact that OSGeo Live serves as an introduction, I think the 
libraries are far less important to include.




Kind regards,

Gert-Jan





Astrid Emde (OSGeo) schreef op 17-04-2017 23:40:

Reducing scope of OSGeo-Live for next 11.0 release

18 April 2017

For our next OSGeo-Live release, 11.0, we propose to reduce the number
of packages included, and only support a 64 bit distribution, (32 bit
will be built but not tested or officially supported).

Factors leading to this suggestion include:
1. Some projects have dwindling communities and momentum.
2. Increased OSGeo-Live scope has increased our core maintenance and 
testing.

3. Reduced engagement from projects (partly due to less core time
spent reaching out to projects)
4. Missing our first release milestone in 9 years.

From our options of reduce quality, become more efficient, increase
volunteer engagement, find a sponsor to support core activities, and
reduce scope, reducing scope is our most viable and acceptable option.
Other ideas are welcomed.

Questions we will ask in assessing which projects to keep include:
1. Is there an ACTIVE OSGeo-Live liaison person/people for the
project? Prior list is copied to "Contact" column at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q5BaEgQtgw4O1bXyeWMlM8XtAOhUgcjZ7Y2O0FZc2H0/edit?hl=en_GB#gid=2014800150
2. Has the Project Overview and Quickstart been reviewed and are they
current and complete?
3. Do OpenHub metrics reflect an active and healthy community:
https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html
4. Is the project being updated on OSGeo-Live with each release?


Key Milestones
---
 5-Jun-2017	OSGeo-Live Feature Freeze (final application versions 
installed)

19-Jun-2017 OSGeo-Live delivered to UAT (final application versions
installed - Beta stage)
24-Jul-2017 OSGeo-Live Final ISO
14-Aug-2017 FOSS4G 2017 Boston

full schedule:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Al9zh8DjmU_RdE1SYUN3YWJ2N1NpSUczbW9IRWZNclE=en_GB

About OSGeo-Live

OSGeo-Live (http://live.osgeo.org) is a Lubuntu (http://lubuntu.net)
based distribution of Geospatial Open Source Software, available via a
Live DVD, Virtual Machine and USB. You can use OSGeo-Live to try a
wide variety of open source geospatial software without installing
anything.


Greetings from th OSGeo-Live Team!

--

Astrid Emde
Charter Member
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Astrid_Emde
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Only 6 days left to earn 160 euro's!

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Now that the program for the annual conference free and open source 
software for geospatial (FOSS4G) has been published we can't think of a 
reason NOT to register as soon as possible.


By doing so before the 9th of May you keep 160 euro's in your pocket (by 
paying an attendance fee of 590 instead of 750 euro's). 160 euro's. That 
makes a lot of Bratwurst & Beer!
But even more important, you also give the organisation committee a good 
insight of who is joining us at the conference in August in Bonn, and 
thus you give us the opportunity to fine-tune the program and its side 
events to fulfil your expectations.


About 150 "early bird" participants already did so. Take them as a good 
example, and point your browser to http://2016.foss4g.org/home.html.


Not next week. Not tomorrow. Register. Now!


Kind rrgards,

Gert-Jan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Hi Jody and others,

Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice 
subject for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August 
at FOSS4G in Bonn.
If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can 
see if we can fit this in the program)



Cheers,

Gert-Jan




Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:

A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project)
- being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation
that forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I
understand it. The benevolent dictator model does not meet this
inclusive requirement, Cameron suggested a steering committee formed
with one chair member with 1.5 votes (to prevent deadlock).

The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users
of the software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like
having a project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from
a stability problem - what if the dictator or organization loses
interest? By splitting responsibility across multiple parties the
project has a much better chance of weathering these storms ... and
the risk for users of the software is lower.

I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of the
benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.

--
Jody Garnett
On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath 
wrote:


On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett
 wrote:


This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee,
but no I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic
of our foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects -
but demand that the projects be inclusive and open to
collaboration.

I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.

I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one
true way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote
on decisions (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable -
provided there is a provision for new committers to be added into
the mix.


I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in
incubation is not a good idea.

If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC
should work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever
criteria, one being the "dictator" way.

Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must
be validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a
checklist to validate working PSC and how it should work can filter
projects with "benevolent dictator".

We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the
foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less
demanding on our community projects - which provides a way for
projects that do not meet some of our ideal criteria to be part of
the foundation.
--

Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter 
wrote:

OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,

I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on
this question:

Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
incubating projects?

-0 from me, Cameron Shorter.

Background:
* As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested
a "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent
dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo
incubated projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members".
Someone with better legal training than me might find "benevolent
dictatorships" to be unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]

[1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":


http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html

[2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
[3]
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html

On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
Cameron-

I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is
definitely correct. While our process is and always has been
absolutely open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and
technically best solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought
rasdaman to where it stands now - it is designed by innovation, not
by committee. Just to get me right, our model is certainly not the
right one for every endeavour. Here it is the most appropriate, and
hence we will keep it.

As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many
projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to
decide whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in
this case manifest with rasdaman).

best,
Peter

On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Bruce, Peter,
I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only
see one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.

The Governance model 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Recruiting OSGeo Santa Clause(s)

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Hi all,

The website is a tool, just as OSGeo-Live is a tool.
The 2 committees (WebCom and MarkCom) are closely related.

In  my opinion MarkCom set the goals and probably defines what tools are 
needed to reach these goals.

WebCom makes sure  one of these tools is up and running.
That requires different skill, which makes it a valid choice to keep the 
2 committees separated.



Regards,

Gert-Jan



Venkatesh Raghavan schreef op 16-03-2016 7:53:

On 3/16/2016 3:00 PM, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:


I think that nicolas ideas are fully right. Website is one of the
best
marketing tool.
Maybe making one committee from two dormient make one awake... could
we
consider to join webcom and marketing in a new one?


I also think that merging web and marketing committees would make a
lot
of sense.

Best

Venka


Maxi
Il 15/Mar/2016 21:39, "Jody Garnett"  ha
scritto:

Thanks Cameron & Nick, could you start outlining a "reboot" on the
wiki
and grab an agenda item for next months board meeting? We also have
a
hangout/workparty for board members (and officers?) in case you want
some
companionship shaping the wiki page.

--
Jody Garnett

On 15 March 2016 at 04:38, nicolas bozon 
wrote:

Dear Cameron, Marketing Committee, OSGeo Directors,

As a member of the so called "dormant" Marketing Committee, i would
be
glad to help revitalising it.

In fact it hasn't been a satisfactory nor confortable situation to
be a
member of such a forgotten commitee since 2012.
So i'd like to volunteer for championing such committee reboot, and
propose to help define strategic changes, recruit new members and
tackle
some of the administrative tasks.
I can also chair the Committee if needed, and if this is
appropriated for
gathering the troops. Cameron, I am not Santa (but 'Klaus' only:)),
but I'd
be very glad to learn from your experience and we may try to enhance
things
together.

However,i think the commitee's mission and role should be revised,
probably indepth modified, and aligned with the new OSGeo plans.
My main point is that the mandate of the OSGeo Marketing Committee
must
go way beyond the funding of OSGeo events and the managment of
consumables
or swag, as it mostly did (or not) until now.
OSGeo Live is one of our best marketing tool to showcase some of the
Foundation's software projects, but not to promote and market the
Foundation itself IMHO.
OSGeo Live must of course be kept inside a new marketing plan, but
the
latter shouldn't be built on DVDs and events only.

According to me, improving OSGeo Marketing globally is one of the
most
important and urgent action to be taken according to the new
strategic plan
defined by the Board.
It must help OSGeo to be presented as more matured, more inclusive,
more
professional, and fully considered by the broader geospatial
community.

I believe such reborn Marketing Committee should work closely along
with
the Board of Directors, the Website Committee and a few motivated
contributors, in order to:

- Define a consitent OSGeo identity from existing material
(including
revised graphic guidelines, new shapes and colors aligned with
identified
needs and recent web trends, new scalable vector graphics, web fonts
...)
- Refine the OSGeo web identity (including main site redesign
through the
developement a new drupal theme, responsive webdesign, efficient and
reusable visuals...)
- Enhance OSGeo web content and presence (including blog, journal,
newsletter and bring more activity on various social networks)
- Market the OSGeo brand online and at all kind of events (including
consumables management, viral marketing, direct marketing...)

Such actions could be prioritized and voted by the Committee's
members,
coordinated by the commitee's chair according to the Committee
members, and
aligned with the allocated budget and volunteered time.

I sincerly hope we can reboot and improve our Marketing Committee
together, in order to grow and market our Foundation better.
Let us talk, decide and act now ! Enough rest for MarkCom' !

Best regards,

Nick

2016-03-15 8:42 GMT+01:00 Cameron Shorter
:

OSGeo needs help distributing money to worthy causes. We need an
OSGeo
Santa Clause.

The current state of play is:
* The OSGeo Board has allocated budget for an OSGeo marketing
committee
to distribute.

* But, our OSGeo Marketing committee has imploded. (I was the last
chair, a few years back). It seems no one is interested in the
administrative tasks of giving away money, doing the administrative
work of
writing cheques, being accountable, deciding which requests get
funded
verses which don't based on a set of guidelines.

My take is that handing out money to worthy marketing causes can't
be
too important, as it is not bugging anyone enough to want to step up
and
volunteer to fix it. But I'd be delighted to proven wrong, and see
some
people volunteer to step up to revitalise the OSGeo marketing
committee. If
you are possibly 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo is supporting the Geospatial World Forum - opportunity for OSGeo advocates

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Dirk, Johan

Good to see you managed to make good agreements with the GWF 
organisation!
Especially knowing that in 2012 and 2013 we hard some hard times to get 
things going...
And the reduced attendence fee of 25 euro's in something we in Holland 
of course like as well!


Through our Dutch channels we'll (such as the osgeo.nl website, and 
www.meetup.com/osgeonl we'll keep the Dutch informed of the program.


Probably I won't attend the conference myself, because of obligations at 
a different congress (Provero) which happens to be at the same day.

However, I might join at the drinks afterwards ;-)


Kind regards,

Gert-Jan



till.ad...@fossgis.de schreef op 16-03-2016 11:08:

Hi Dirk,

as we just discussed via Skype. I am happy to contribute with an
invitation to FOSs4g 2016 in Bonn. I also could talk a little about
our ideas, our focus and stuff like this. As i'll be there anyhow, you
mgith count me in for other activities as well, in case just drop me a
note early enough, so that I have time to prepare.

Till


Am 2016-03-13 19:44, schrieb Dirk Frigne:

Dear all,

As OSGeo celebrates his 10th anniversary, and outreach to the external
world is one of our strategic goals for the next 10 years, OSGeo 
decided

to become supporting organisation for the Geospatial World Forum in
Rotterdam, 2016 May 23-26. We will host an "OSGeo" track on May 24,
2016. As this is an opportunity where the whole GIS industry and the
public sector is coming together from all over the globe to exchange
information, it is a great opportunity for OSGeo to outreach to the
greater public.

Please have a look at the draft agenda and add your name where you may
help. I am looking for advocates that want to promote their project,
their community, why they are involved, and how people interested 
could

benefit or help out. It is a good moment to celebrate and to show the
advantages of OSGeo software.

[1] is the wiki page with a schedule for an agenda. The idea is to
present OSGeo as an organisation from volunteers to anybody interested
in open software, where OSGeo will present our new vision and mission,
Geo4All, the live-Demo and the Champion OSGeo projects. The template 
is
copied into the GWF program [2], where GWF is asking to provide 
pictures

of people presenting to send a photo.

There are 2 workshops: INSPIRE for OSGeo / OSGeo for INSPIRE where we
will discuss how both communities can support each other, and there is 
a

workshop about the next steps for the European Local Chapter.


[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Geospatial_World_Forum_2016
[2] http://geospatialworldforum.org/OSGeo-programme.html
[3] http://geospatialworldforum.org/


Dirk

P.S.
I also included the contact persons of the nearby local chapters
(Netherlands, Germany and Belgium) to distribute the message in their
respective local chapters.



--
Yours sincerely,


ir. Dirk Frigne
CEO @geosparc

Geosparc n.v.
Brugsesteenweg 587
B-9030 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
GSM: +32 495 508 799

http://www.geomajas.org
http://www.geosparc.com

@DFrigne
be.linkedin.com/in/frigne

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Barn raising: osgeo.org web site

[Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl)]

Hi Ian,

Is this update a pure technical one, or are there also plans to give the 
site a new fresh & young look?



regards,

Gert-Jan





Ian Edwards schreef op 09-12-2015 14:38:

Excellent - thanks Jeff.

All - please keep sending in requirements for the remake of the main
osgeo.org [2] website.  It may make sense to move specifics of this
discussion to the webcom mailing list, but please reply on discuss
with any major issues to this proposal overall, or with any
alternative suggestions prior to tomorrow's board meeting.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jeff McKenna
 wrote:


On 2015-12-07 6:31 PM, Ian Edwards wrote:


Hi All,

Plans to recreate the current OSGeo.org website in a newer version
of
the Drupal content management system are on the wiki here:

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo.org_Web_Site_-_2016_Barn_Raising

This topic is also on the agenda for this week's OSGeo board
meeting
(Thursday):
agenda: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2015-12-10

time:




http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2015=12=10=14=0=0%2015.00UTC


Please send replies to the message to *discuss**@lists.osgeo.org
[1]
* and not to the other lists included on
this
message to prevent the discussion from being split across the
discuss,
board, sac and webcom lists!

Many thanks,

Ian

P.S. I anticipate that we may not all agree that a manual
migration to
Drupal 8 is the absolute optimal solution --- but please bear in
mind
that possible upgrades have been in discussion since 2007...
We're
looking for a solution that can be easily implemented and meets
the main
requirements (including removing ad hoc custom PHP and also
ensuring
solid multilingual support).


I've added more requirements to the wiki as well:

- Allow easy way to find communication channels:

mailing lists
IRC
OSGeo Slack
OSGeo HipChat
OSGeo Gitter

-jeff

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




Links:
--
[1] http://lists.osgeo.org
[2] http://osgeo.org

___
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