From: Andrea A. <aa...@op...> - 2009-06-29 18:12:39
|
Hi all, one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. Given our project control structure and the community around the project I think it would be beneficial if we joined. Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. What do you think? Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. |
From: Rob A. <rob...@gm...> - 2009-06-29 22:15:20
|
+1 from me On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Andrea Aime<aa...@op...> wrote: > Hi all, > one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code > sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the > thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. > > That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO > and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that > OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > Given our project control structure and the community > around the project I think it would be beneficial if > we joined. > > Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take > our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the > GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. > > What do you think? > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > Andrea Aime > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Expert service straight from the developers. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > |
From: Justin D. <jde...@op...> - 2009-06-29 23:21:02
|
I think the original idea of what a project becoming an OSGEO project would mean has turned out to be different in reality. I know that originally a major argument against a project joining was that the projects "identity" and branding would have to be sacrificed. But it turns out that is not really the case and projects in the foundation seem able to remain autonomous, and at the same time enjoy the benefits of being part of the foundation. I think that argument was more or less the GeoServer argument. +1 from me. -Justin Andrea Aime wrote: > Hi all, > one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code > sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the > thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. > > That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO > and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that > OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > Given our project control structure and the community > around the project I think it would be beneficial if > we joined. > > Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take > our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the > GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. > > What do you think? > Cheers > Andrea > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. |
From: Jody G. <jod...@gm...> - 2009-06-30 01:01:58
|
I am okay with this; but I would ask that OpenGeo to retain copyright (it has provided influential for me in contract negotiations). Although I suppose on paper it looks like the difference between two foundations - so perhaps it does not matter? With respect to branding - I view this as a failure of OSGeo (I expected more branding and identity out of the foundation - and they are making some strides towards this goal recently). Right now branding is a very weak story (and making the websites look similar is one way to fix it). I expect the member projects to set the direction - and GeoServer would not be alone in protecting its own identity. This would be an excellent discussion to have on the incubation list. The recent strides that OpenGeo have taken (both on the GeoServer website; and on the OpenGeo website) have had a very positive impact on the project. The only hesitation I have is that of the long term roadmap (of ideas looking for funding). Hesitation is too strong a word - that roadmap on the opengeo site is a very good move that the community here should follow. As such I would like to claw that back in the direction of the GeoServer website - but there is no reason for OpenGeo to change their site. In terms of a community Roadmap page we should make sure we offer a contact person for each idea so that opengeo, geosolutions and others can be contacted if a prospective customer or volunteer is interested in an idea). I would like to put curve support on there for example. Jody On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Justin Deoliveira<jde...@op...> wrote: > I think the original idea of what a project becoming an OSGEO project > would mean has turned out to be different in reality. I know that > originally a major argument against a project joining was that the > projects "identity" and branding would have to be sacrificed. But it > turns out that is not really the case and projects in the foundation > seem able to remain autonomous, and at the same time enjoy the benefits > of being part of the foundation. > > I think that argument was more or less the GeoServer argument. +1 from me. > > -Justin > > Andrea Aime wrote: >> Hi all, >> one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code >> sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the >> thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. >> >> That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO >> and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that >> OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. >> >> Given our project control structure and the community >> around the project I think it would be beneficial if >> we joined. >> >> Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take >> our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the >> GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. >> >> What do you think? >> Cheers >> Andrea >> > > > -- > Justin Deoliveira > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Enterprise support for open source geospatial. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > |
From: Chris H. <ch...@op...> - 2009-06-30 03:43:00
|
Jody Garnett wrote: > I am okay with this; but I would ask that OpenGeo to retain copyright > (it has provided influential for me in contract negotiations). > Although I suppose on paper it looks like the difference between two > foundations - so perhaps it does not matter? > Yeah, there seems to be precedent for this, with Metacarta thus far retaining copyright on OpenLayers. To be honest I find that a bit odd, but it seems to not matter to OSGeo. > With respect to branding - I view this as a failure of OSGeo (I > expected more branding and identity out of the foundation - and they > are making some strides towards this goal recently). Right now > branding is a very weak story (and making the websites look similar is > one way to fix it). > > I expect the member projects to set the direction - and GeoServer > would not be alone in protecting its own identity. This would be an > excellent discussion to have on the incubation list. > > The recent strides that OpenGeo have taken (both on the GeoServer > website; and on the OpenGeo website) have had a very positive impact > on the project. The only hesitation I have is that of the long term > roadmap (of ideas looking for funding). Hesitation is too strong a > word - that roadmap on the opengeo site is a very good move that the > community here should follow. As such I would like to claw that back > in the direction of the GeoServer website - but there is no reason for > OpenGeo to change their site. > In doing the OpenGeo roadmap I hoped to inspire others (GeoSolutions, Refractions, CSIRO, Lisasoft, independent devs like Christian, etc) to follow suit. I think the roadmap page on the GeoServer site should reflect all the directions that community members are hoping to drive the project - and with the shorter term roadmap that has real time/funding attached to it we can coordinate how to make all those directions possible. Each org on their own website can promote the directions they're able and interested in taking funding on. On the OpenGeo site we deliberately stayed away from things like nD raster and complex feature support, as that core development is less on our roadmap, but we are very psyched to see it in the community and help out if we can. I _think_ most of the things we put on the OpenGeo roadmap were already on the GeoServer roadmap (as I updated the GS one a couple months before). > In terms of a community Roadmap page we should make sure we offer a > contact person for each idea so that opengeo, geosolutions and others > can be contacted if a prospective customer or volunteer is interested > in an idea). I would like to put curve support on there for example. > I would definitely be for this. An individual contact person could be nice - I stopped short of linking the gs roadmap to the opengeo pages as it seemed too much of a commercial link, and the GeoServer project is much more than OpenGeo. But if individuals put their name next to roadmap items then both potential funders and volunteers know who to get in touch with. I think we can also have more than one person against each item - it's an indication that someone would like to work on it, and would be willing to put in at least a _bit_ of volunteer time to point a potential contributor in the right direction. I'm happy to put some more of my volunteer time in to the roadmap - indeed most of the short term items are now done. And new web interface and complex features can probably move to 'short term'. Jody, if you want to find some time to work together we can do a coordinated revamp of the page. Doing so is generally worth a blog post, as we can talk about what we did do and what we're going to do next. C > Jody > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Justin Deoliveira<jde...@op...> wrote: >> I think the original idea of what a project becoming an OSGEO project >> would mean has turned out to be different in reality. I know that >> originally a major argument against a project joining was that the >> projects "identity" and branding would have to be sacrificed. But it >> turns out that is not really the case and projects in the foundation >> seem able to remain autonomous, and at the same time enjoy the benefits >> of being part of the foundation. >> >> I think that argument was more or less the GeoServer argument. +1 from me. >> >> -Justin >> >> Andrea Aime wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code >>> sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the >>> thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. >>> >>> That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO >>> and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that >>> OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. >>> >>> Given our project control structure and the community >>> around the project I think it would be beneficial if >>> we joined. >>> >>> Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take >>> our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the >>> GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> Cheers >>> Andrea >>> >> >> -- >> Justin Deoliveira >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >> Enterprise support for open source geospatial. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Geoserver-devel mailing list >> Geo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel -- Chris Holmes OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. |
From: Jody G. <jod...@gm...> - 2009-06-30 03:52:49
|
> I'm happy to put some more of my volunteer time in to the roadmap - indeed > most of the short term items are now done. And new web interface and > complex features can probably move to 'short term'. Jody, if you want to > find some time to work together we can do a coordinated revamp of the page. > Doing so is generally worth a blog post, as we can talk about what we did > do and what we're going to do next. I would be up for that next week when I am back at the office. I am glad you liked the balance of listing contact people next to each road map idea. As you can see from my other emails there is a backlog of ideas coming out of last weeks meeting(s). No major hurry on any of these - just wanted to get the ideas out and onto the list for discussion. Jody |
From: Ben Caradoc-D. <Ben...@cs...> - 2009-06-30 07:04:16
|
Andrea Aime wrote: > That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO > and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that > OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. Andrea, it is very timely that you raise this issue. I have also heard concerns from stakeholders regarding GeoServer not being in OSGeo. I think it would be very good for GeoServer to join OSGeo. We would all benefit, collaboration and branding would be strengthened, and any (mistaken) impression of factionalism would be removed. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben...@cs...> Software Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and Mining Australian Resources Research Centre 26 Dick Perry Ave, Kensington WA 6151, Australia |
From: Gabriel R. <gr...@op...> - 2009-06-30 13:14:00
|
My understanding was always that GeoServer would be very much willing to join OSGeo, but being that tied to GeoTools and hence to the GeoTools incubation process, the GeoServer community had not enough energy to overcome both at the same time, and hence GeoServer wanted to track the geotools process while and after incubation before deciding to join. So it seems like we're already there, good timing Andrea. +1 from me of course. Gabriel Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > Andrea Aime wrote: >> That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO >> and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that >> OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > Andrea, it is very timely that you raise this issue. I have also heard > concerns from stakeholders regarding GeoServer not being in OSGeo. I > think it would be very good for GeoServer to join OSGeo. We would all > benefit, collaboration and branding would be strengthened, and any > (mistaken) impression of factionalism would be removed. > > Kind regards, > -- Gabriel Roldan OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. |
From: Justin D. <jde...@op...> - 2009-06-30 23:50:17
|
Ironically enough I also had this conversation with someone yesterday, when they were asked "Would GeoServer being a part of OSGEO matter?" they answered "Yes, it would matter very much". Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > Andrea Aime wrote: >> That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO >> and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that >> OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > Andrea, it is very timely that you raise this issue. I have also heard > concerns from stakeholders regarding GeoServer not being in OSGeo. I > think it would be very good for GeoServer to join OSGeo. We would all > benefit, collaboration and branding would be strengthened, and any > (mistaken) impression of factionalism would be removed. > > Kind regards, > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. |
From: Simone G. <sim...@ge...> - 2009-06-30 14:07:36
|
Ciao Andrea, I think you already know my position, due to previous discussions we had. In the past I have been more than once in the situation where institutional grants where (unofficially) refused or given to other projects since GeoServer was seen (talking from a EU perspective here) as an "American" project. I believe that joining osgeo would remove this obstacle and make things easier. Conclusions is that I am strongly +1. Ciao, Simone. ------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Simone Giannecchini GeoSolutions S.A.S. Owner - Software Engineer Via Carignoni 51 55041 Camaiore (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584983027 fax: +39 0584983027 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://simboss.blogspot.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini ------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Andrea Aime<aa...@op...> wrote: > Hi all, > one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code > sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the > thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. > > That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO > and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that > OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > Given our project control structure and the community > around the project I think it would be beneficial if > we joined. > > Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take > our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the > GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. > > What do you think? > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > Andrea Aime > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Expert service straight from the developers. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > |
From: Alessio F. <ale...@gm...> - 2009-06-30 14:12:59
|
+1 here of course ------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Alessio Fabiani Vice-President /CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Carignoni 51 55041 Camaiore (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 980933 fax: +39 0584 983027 mob: +39 349 8227000 http://www.geo-solutions.it ------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Simone Giannecchini < sim...@ge...> wrote: > Ciao Andrea, > I think you already know my position, due to previous discussions we had. > > In the past I have been more than once in the situation where > institutional grants where (unofficially) refused or given to other > projects since GeoServer was seen (talking from a EU perspective here) > as an "American" project. I believe that joining osgeo would remove > this obstacle and make things easier. > > Conclusions is that I am strongly +1. > > Ciao, > Simone. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Owner - Software Engineer > Via Carignoni 51 > 55041 Camaiore (LU) > Italy > > phone: +39 0584983027 > fax: +39 0584983027 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://simboss.blogspot.com/ > http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Andrea Aime<aa...@op...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code > > sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the > > thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. > > > > That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO > > and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that > > OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. > > > > Given our project control structure and the community > > around the project I think it would be beneficial if > > we joined. > > > > Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take > > our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the > > GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. > > > > What do you think? > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > > -- > > Andrea Aime > > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > > Expert service straight from the developers. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Geoserver-devel mailing list > > Geo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > |