Hi,
One action item from a recent board meeting was to help review the
community project rules.
Even has raised some interesting points some time ago and I think it
would be valuable to follow up on this discussion with help from
Incubation committee.
Some comments inline:
On 08/19/2017 0
This is a good discussion:
2) sometimes university labs are ALSO providing services. Shall we consider
>> this option and leave the possibility to the labs that are doing so to be
>> listed also here?
>>
>
> This is something we had not quite thought of. Seems a Geo for all lab
> should be able to
That was actually the original requirement Jeff. I am having a hard time
explaining to get Interactive that the sort order "core contributor"
changes based on project. Even though we used the geoserver and qgis pages
as an example.
It is kind of working since they have that association for "core
c
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:58 Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Polimi wrote:
>
>> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
>> to be a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ
>> said, if somebody is alienated we can ski
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:27 Polimi wrote:
> Thank you all for your proposals and discussion. I' m currently in
> holidays and therefore I want just to propose some short comments.
> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
> to be a small startup or company inste
In fact this should be implemented. Not sure how we overlooked this. Jachym
can you file an issue for this?
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 00:37 Jachym Cepicky
wrote:
> Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
> people to service providers (companies in general) as we
JeffM,
It seems you are making a leap from asking service providers how big they
are to this alienating them or somehow excluding ones of a certain size
(big or small it's not clear). Can you explain the thoughts behind your
argument here? I think the rest of us are saying that everyone should be
As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents.
[...]
> From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may also
> be important, a larger company
> typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
> contracts), and possibly a more diversifi
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Polimi wrote:
> 1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative
> to be a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ
> said, if somebody is alienated we can skip it. We have just to better
> discuss this 'if'.
>
Just
Thank you all for your proposals and discussion. I' m currently in holidays and
therefore I want just to propose some short comments.
1) in my opinion the size matters and it is not in se something negative to be
a small startup or company instead of a big one. Anyway, as JeffJ said, if
somebody
Hi Jody,
For the MapServer project Service Providers page[1] that was created
recently, we do not alienate or 'filter' out companies by size (of any
number); instead we use the following options:
1. Core Contributors
Core Contributor organizations have project Committers and/or PSC
m
Makes sense. So you can see on the service providers who are the ones
with more contributors.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Jachym Cepicky
wrote:
> Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
> people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign t
Eh, new idea just came to my mind: What about adding possibility to assign
people to service providers (companies in general) as we can assign to
projects? After all, it's all about people, isn't it?
Again, maybe it is in cotradiction with some principle, I'm missing
J
út 22. 8. 2017 v 2:58 odes
Note the news section is intended for news related to a specific
service provider. Its *not* doing this now, so its unclear.
Can you file an issue about the search. Agree this should work for a
project name here.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Jachym Cepicky
wrote:
> hi,
>
> yes for me (OpenGe
> 3) as mentioned in 2) it would be nice to have a place on our site to
> list organizations that are NOT looking for work, nor are a GeoForAll
> Lab, nor (yet) a sponsor or a partner (with a formal MOU). Perhaps
> they are important contributors to a project and would like to be
> listed somewhere
hi,
yes for me (OpenGeoLabs) it works as it is now - we are listed, we have
links to projects we can support, there is logo, picture, web page, once it
works, we are gonna be on the map, what could I possibly ask for more? (if
the graphics around "News" will be made more clear)
side note: maybe
Hi All,
I think we are talking about several different issues here. Let me try
to summarize.
1) JeffM is suggesting that we should *not* ask Service Providers what
size they are in terms of number of employees to avoid 'alienating'
them. I'm not sure I see how any would be alienated, but I dont t
Jeff have you heard from any small companies that feel alienated? For many
being a small company gives them a chance to offer personal service. I do
not want to make assumptions if we can help it.
My feedback was actually focused on the site design, partnership & friend
relationships are appropria
Yeah does not appear to be hooked up yet the news - good note about the
sponsors - we should add to the issue tracker if you have not done so
already.
Aside: When I made a partner page I could hook up some events, projects,
resources.
--
Jody Garnett
On 21 August 2017 at 17:52, Jachym Cepicky w
Hi Jody,
By alienating the smaller OSGeo companies in our new website, I don't
see a benefit to OSGeo at all. Let us please all sizes of OSGeo
companies, small and big.
Yes this is tricky, for sure, even your initial message to Jachym shows
a lot of what it could be like, if OSGeo suddenly
I already changed it from number to the size thing.
This list was for support providers (since the website is about outreach
looks at projects, local chapters and service providers).
GeoForAll labs and academic / research outreach are in slightly different
spot (we could cross link). See
http://o
Jachym, to clarify: any organization should be able to advertise their
services for an OSGeo project, whether they are a non-profit or a
research entity or a private company etc. That is how my proposal
avoids separating OSGeo organizations by size.
-jeff
On 2017-08-21 6:17 PM, Jachym Cepi
Hi Jachym,
Yes I agree, it is a slippery slope that once we/OSGeo decide that size
is an important part of our organization (as you know, many other
organizations separate their membership by size), it opens up so many
other challenges. For that reason, I spoke up here to suggest that we
avo
Hi Jeff (all)
currently, the page is listing "service providers" - it's project oriented
(as providing services to projects)
your proposal is shifting it little bit to "all organisations", not even
service providing - but what is their releationship to the (osgeo)
projects? - still, it would be
On 2017-08-21 5:11 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
For your page
http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is that a
single consultant (you!) or a company?
(or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it)
Hi Jody,
Regarding separating the OSGeo community by size, I sugges
Hi,
specifically this page, it's company, we are more people (about 5-7 - I do
cover the accounting and paper work) - but it's official "ltd."
I'm happy with the content (as I can only be) - do you have any problem
with that?
What IMHO does not work: the News are not clearly separated, it seems,
For your page http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/
Is that a single consultant (you!) or a company?
(or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it)
Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news
items (checking now they do not really let us
My bad, it is hard to keep up with so many amazing contributors :)
--
Jody Garnett
On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>
> just noting
>
> j
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta webs
afaik it was Vasile's overview
just noting
j
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett wrote:
> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
> discussion is covering what we should consider for lis
That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review" is
the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
"foss4g") projects in the future.
One of the coolest things I saw at the conference w
Hi,
just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
projects" on the new OSGeo web page
I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules and
approval process
IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project appear
on OSGeo Web page as
I generally agree with Even's comments.
W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a question
about how this would apply to free software that is mostly intended to
operate with non-free data? e.g. GDAL drivers that enable reading
proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or form
Hi Angelos and Even,
Thanks for enlightening us with very thoughtful and pertinent points
and comments.
It would be great to have a broader view on this
and hope to hear from others in our community.
Best
Venka
P.S. Even, congratulations on your 10 years + 2 days since
your first commit to G
Hi Angelos,
thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and your
proposal sounds
good to me. A few comments below.
>
> I would like to propose a way forward:
>
> 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with OSGeo
> (as other Free and Open Source o
Dear friends,
There has been a vivid discussion so far and I would like us to maintain a
positive perspective of things. I fully understand that our community is
diverse and that is a result/part of our success. We should all be
respectful of each other and avoid fingerpointing and questioning
con
35 matches
Mail list logo