Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

That is fine Maxi, I think the point is to be good neighbours. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43 PM Massimiliano Cannata < massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch> wrote: > Even if I'm willing to accept narrative b, i cannot exclude narrative a > and thus i'm not willing in expose osgeo to this concrete risk. >

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Even if I'm willing to accept narrative b, i cannot exclude narrative a and thus i'm not willing in expose osgeo to this concrete risk. For this reason i believe we should just suspend the "relations" until we have clarified this. It is too important not to make any mistake driven by th LT pressure

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Thank you for the two narratives Rob, I find it a much more constructive presentation then the FAQ provided previously. Narrative B matches my own experience, although I have focused on project/developer level interaction (and largely ignored any capacity as a PCO). I think I can make the slightly

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

I believe that narrative B best fits what I know about LocationTech and their interactions with OSGeo. Note that this is my personal opinion. Michael Smith OSGeo Foundation Treasurer treasu...@osgeo.org From: Discuss on behalf of Rob Emanuele Date: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 7:59 PM

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

I think there's two narratives that are at conflict in this entire thread. I'm going to try to try to spell them out as I see them: A. LocationTech is a newer-than-OSGeo organization that is trying to make a name for itself, capture market share, promote it's brand, in general act in a way that ma

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Jody, > > I have to admit, to me as OSGeo member as developer (+SAC supporter), this > whole thread has not clarified almost nothing. > Agreed, email is tough for communication, and this conversation has started by looking for differences rather than look at how things are. As much as I apprecia

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

On 16 November 2015 at 23:11, Jody Garnett wrote: > If I was to sum up the difference in outlook between the two organizations > today it would more be along the lines of LocationTech being "developer > focused" and OSGeo being "user focused'. I think that is more a reflection > of where the proje

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

On 12 November 2015 at 15:35, Andrea Ross wrote: > > The FAQ produced recently > > does a pretty good job covering the situation. > This FAQ makes me a bit sad (if it needs to be written then we h

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Thanks for the balanced discussion Rob and Jeff: I have enjoyed the feeling of community at LocationTech, and appreciate your assistance talking me through raster processing libraries last week. By the same token the Code Sprint in Philadelphia was a great chance to build bridges between projects.

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

I should probably read the rest of the email for context, a few personal responses inline. > Still i don't understand why LocationTech is pressing so much for > collaborating with osgeo, or share events at least. > I've never see this from ogc, apache, ICA or any other organization which > has his

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

> I think you forgot "economic discrimination"! > > For me, whether I would be able to pay for a membership or not, it makes > it a very easy decision, where I want to contribute my volunteer time for. > > Sorry, if this slightly moved the thread into a different direction. > I just wanted to agree

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed OSGeo Vision

Thank you Jeff for your dedication and efforts for OSGeo and taking time to put together your ideas for the proposed OSGeo vision and thanks to Cameron for excellent comments/suggestions to help refine this. This proposed OSGeo vision ideas are a good start to discuss and brainstorm ideas of ho

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed OSGeo Vision

Hi Jeff, I've renamed this email thread to "Proposed OSGeo Vision", and have selected out your text specifically related the Vision. I'm re-reading the text more slowly on my second pass. Firstly, I think you have done a great first pass. Please consider my comments as suggested refinements.

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo4W orphaned?

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Jürgen E. wrote: > Hi Helmut, > > On Sat, 14. Nov 2015 at 23:18:36 +0100, Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote: > > Is OSGeo4W orphaned? > > No. But it's mostly only getting updates on GRASS (but only 32bit) and > QGIS. > Dependencies are usually only updated if required.

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Andrea, > Your email is incorrect and very misleading unfortunately. Is to easy as a statement to reply Daniel's mail[1], but I don't agree as I don't see your point. I think Daniel is right in his analysis, and so is his mail. OSGeo is all about individual members, and there are no legal entiti

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Thanks for this Steven, > Please don’t assume that the lack of response to your FAQ means that it is > widely accepted. > > I think that you need to recognise the concerns that have been expressed in > the various threads (whether you consider them valid or not) and seek to > address them through

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo/LocationTech relationship

Andrea Please don’t assume that the lack of response to your FAQ means that it is widely accepted. I think that you need to recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the various threads (whether you consider them valid or not) and seek to address them through discussions which are a