Right, I don't disagree with this. I am just saying that there are a lot
of good ideas and one man projects that will never have a large
community to support them because of marketing,
communications,visibility issues, not technical reasons, but that
doesn't mean we should throw the code away.
For young projects that are not ready for incubation we have previously
set up:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs
For the rest of this topic, I think we should go back to the principles
of OSGeo and what makes it effective.
OSGeo (like Ubuntu) promotes the "best of breed" GeoFOSS software
Frank,
Your last point would seem to work both ways. I see the idea as a way of
solidifying project integration aspects vs making them into the gooey stuff
inside of the Shell. :c)
bobb
>>> Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
cc:ed to incubator, but please reply to the discuss li
An other thought on this might be a some kind of OSGeo "contrib" project
that is more focused on collecting projects likes Bob's into a common
repository with the hope that making these public might allow some of
them to spin-off into full blown OSGeo projects if there is enough
interest and co
Jody,
I was thinking about a bit more separation in functionality than you describe,
but it seems like the same process could work.
I guess I'm trying to figure out a way to let smaller projects in the door, and
let the mainstay project leaders decide if the smaller projects have enough
meri
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bob; you will find that a few of the open source projects nurture new
> talent this way.
>
> The GeoTools library has the facilities in place to allow new developers to
> come online and start an "unsupported" module wit
Hi Bob; you will find that a few of the open source projects nurture new
talent this way.
The GeoTools library has the facilities in place to allow new developers
to come online and start an "unsupported" module with the support of the
community. Each module in GeoTools is an entire project (o
This is an interesting idea. I think it would have to be a case where
an existing OSGeo project (I think what you're calling the "Super"
project) expects this smaller project to have an important future as a
viable OSGeo project. The PSC of the sponsoring project (say
Mapserver, Mapguide or
cc:ed to incubator, but please reply to the discuss list...
Bob Basques wrote:
All,
I have a question about a possible way to get some smaller projects into
the system without the requirements of going full bore (as I perceive it
now) I'm not really targeting any project per se at this poin
My thanks go to Arnulf.
Landon a
-Original Message-
From: Frank Warmerdam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:47 AM
To: Landon Blake
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OSGeo-OGC MOU
Landon Blake wrote:
> Frank,
>
> I think this is really important work, and I appre
All,
I have a question about a possible way to get some smaller projects into the
system without the requirements of going full bore (as I perceive it now) I'm
not really targeting any project per se at this point, but . . .
What about have a "Super" project that can act as a sponsor for a s
We had a very productive IRC discussion today and have a plan to merge
existing Live CD efforts into one for a FOSS4G 2008 release (in 2 weeks).
Details are being collated here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
Logs of the discussion here:
http://logs.qgis.org/osgeo/%23osgeo.2008-09-11.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious about how many different projects (OSGeo and others) will be
> represented at FOSS4G by speakers, workshops, etc. Rather than wade through
> the presentation listing, I thought I'd be lazy and ask here.
13 matches
Mail list logo
