On 23 Jun 2007, at 21:55, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Landon,
You have made some accusations about poor OGC standards and the
financial barrier to joining the OGC.
1. I'm with you on the financial barrier to joining the OGC. In
particular, I don't like OS developers being locked out of OGC's
An angel investor is by nature too small and idiosyncratic a group to
guarantee good results--isn't this the benevolent dictator argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator? If they happen to
be both well-meaning and right good things can happen. But there's a
much better
I'm sending this to GeoWanking and OSGeo discuss, so I apologize in
advance if your inbox gets hit with it twice. :]
I've written a blog post on the OpenJUMP blog about some of the
problems with software standards.
I imagine this post will make some people upset, but I think it raises
some
Landon,
Hmmm, interesting read.
Didn't offend me at all. It actually hit on a few sweet spots of
interest of mine. One being, that just because everyone else is using
it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to use.
One thing I will rant at you about though, is you didn't really get to
the
Blammo wrote:
I'm not sure what to do about the monetary aspects of the Standards
participation.
What is needed is the equivalent of an angel investor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_investors
By that what I mean is a corporate entity that will
step forward and setup a model where money
