+1 from me,
However, I caution that we should not use this email list to call for
votes. We have close to 1000 people on this list, and if we have 100
people respond to a proposal every week or two, we will make this list
unusable as a communication medium.
If voting is required, I suggest s
+1
Ordinance Survey as requested by Jo
(delayed but not denied)
V.Ravi Kumar
--- On Thu, 25/2/10, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> From: Venkatesh Raghavan
> Subject: Re: IS EVERYONE HERE FAST ASLEEP? was: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OKF /
> OSGeo response to the consultation on opening Ordnan
I completely support the OSGeo/OKFN response. Good job Jo.
"This is a chance for us to see a
change for the better in Ordnance Survey policy, a change that will
serve as a signal example to other NMAs around the world."
Thanks Schuyler for your comments, I really like this one.
Cheers
--
Jorge
+1 for positive response to Ordinance
Survey as requested by Jo.
Awake, Alive and kicking in Japan.
Venka
On 2010/02/25 15:40, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Ditto - it seemed sort of so obvious that I assumed Our Board would
just Do the Right Thing.
+2
.mpg
On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:30 AM, "Chris Pu
Ditto - it seemed sort of so obvious that I assumed Our Board would
just Do the Right Thing.
+2
.mpg
On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:30 AM, "Chris Puttick" wrote:
> Sorry Jo; Schuyler, personally I hadn't realised a response would be
> necessary. I'd assumed it would be a given that OSGeo would be
Hi Jo,
I am +1 on supporting this initiative.
Thanks to Schuyler for waking us up!
Best regards,
Bart
On Feb 22, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear a...@osgeo,
>
> In sending this mail I'm following the protocol for letters of support coming
> from OSGeo:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/P
Sorry Jo; Schuyler, personally I hadn't realised a response would be necessary.
I'd assumed it would be a given that OSGeo would be supporting this...
So +1 to what Jo said.
And come to think of it, +1 to what Schuyler said too!
Chris
- "Schuyler Erle" wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 16:
Schuyler Erle wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 16:26 +0100, Jo Walsh wrote:
dear a...@osgeo,
In sending this mail I'm following the protocol for letters of support
coming from OSGeo:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Protocol_for_requesting_letter_of_support
As you may have heard, there's a public cons
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 16:26 +0100, Jo Walsh wrote:
> dear a...@osgeo,
>
> In sending this mail I'm following the protocol for letters of support
> coming from OSGeo:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Protocol_for_requesting_letter_of_support
>
> As you may have heard, there's a public consultation ru
dear a...@osgeo,
In sending this mail I'm following the protocol for letters of support
coming from OSGeo:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Protocol_for_requesting_letter_of_support
As you may have heard, there's a public consultation running in the UK
on options for open licensing national mapping
10 matches
Mail list logo
