OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Arnulf Christl-3
Dear Board,
this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.

Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through
the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There
are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove
any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback
about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)).
Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.

Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards
work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public
comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal
committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But
for now we keep things running as they are.

Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but
I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good
work and support!

Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the
selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison
officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!

Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through
this list or individually.

Thanks & all the best,
Arnulf

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

jody.garnett
Thanks for the update - I have personally noticed the OGC being more open. How are the OGC membership reacting to the change? Are they enjoying additional feedback?

I still feel that OSGeo service as a voice for the open source industry, which often get's bottle necked on standards an interoperability. I have been concerned recently with a push towards proprietary java script apis that our industry will need to re-lean the value of open standards.

I feel I am missing something on the nudge nudge. I trust our representatives are behaving in a professional/responseive manner.




--
Jody Garnett

On 6 February 2017 at 06:25, Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Board,
this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.

Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)). Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.

Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But for now we keep things running as they are.

Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good work and support!

Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!

Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through this list or individually.

Thanks & all the best,
Arnulf

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Scott Simmons
Dear Jody,

OGC members are quite positive about the increased openness in the organization (after all, they voted to become even more open!). A major advantage is the ability to include external experts early in the work on a particular domain or standard.

Best Regards,
Scott
On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for the update - I have personally noticed the OGC being more open. How are the OGC membership reacting to the change? Are they enjoying additional feedback?

I still feel that OSGeo service as a voice for the open source industry, which often get's bottle necked on standards an interoperability. I have been concerned recently with a push towards proprietary java script apis that our industry will need to re-lean the value of open standards.

I feel I am missing something on the nudge nudge. I trust our representatives are behaving in a professional/responseive manner.




--
Jody Garnett

On 6 February 2017 at 06:25, Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Board,
this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.

Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)). Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.

Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But for now we keep things running as they are.

Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good work and support!

Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!

Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through this list or individually.

Thanks & all the best,
Arnulf

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OGC API White Paper. [was: Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots]

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Hi Jody,

Have you seen the OGC White Paper [1] on APIs yet?

It had input from at least two OSGeo community members, Arnulf and Chris Holmes.

The paper currently requires authentication to access. 

@Scott, when do we (as in OGC), intend opening this document so that we (as in OSGeo) can review and offer feedback?   ;-)

Bruce



On 7 Feb 2017, at 03:01, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for the update - I have personally noticed the OGC being more open. How are the OGC membership reacting to the change? Are they enjoying additional feedback?

I still feel that OSGeo service as a voice for the open source industry, which often get's bottle necked on standards an interoperability. I have been concerned recently with a push towards proprietary java script apis that our industry will need to re-lean the value of open standards.

I feel I am missing something on the nudge nudge. I trust our representatives are behaving in a professional/responseive manner.




--
Jody Garnett

On 6 February 2017 at 06:25, Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Board,
this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.

Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)). Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.

Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But for now we keep things running as they are.

Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good work and support!

Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!

Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through this list or individually.

Thanks & all the best,
Arnulf

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OGC API White Paper. [was: Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots]

Scott Simmons
Bruce,

As a representative of OSGeo, you can circulate the White Paper to the entirety of the OSGeo community for their feedback. I would request that all comments be collected and forwarded to me by just one of the OSGeo reps to simplify our review!

Thanks,
Scott
On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Jody,

Have you seen the OGC White Paper [1] on APIs yet?

It had input from at least two OSGeo community members, Arnulf and Chris Holmes.

The paper currently requires authentication to access. 

@Scott, when do we (as in OGC), intend opening this document so that we (as in OSGeo) can review and offer feedback?   ;-)

Bruce



On 7 Feb 2017, at 03:01, Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for the update - I have personally noticed the OGC being more open. How are the OGC membership reacting to the change? Are they enjoying additional feedback?

I still feel that OSGeo service as a voice for the open source industry, which often get's bottle necked on standards an interoperability. I have been concerned recently with a push towards proprietary java script apis that our industry will need to re-lean the value of open standards.

I feel I am missing something on the nudge nudge. I trust our representatives are behaving in a professional/responseive manner.




--
Jody Garnett

On 6 February 2017 at 06:25, Arnulf Christl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Board,
this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.

Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)). Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.

Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But for now we keep things running as they are.

Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good work and support!

Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!

Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through this list or individually.

Thanks & all the best,
Arnulf

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Jachym Cepicky
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl-3
Hi Arnulf (and all others)

I would like to formally ask for one slot OSGeo has reserved by OGC.
Thought I do not have any fixed plan of concrete steps I would like to
do or to contribute to, I would like to give it a try and see, what are
the benefits.

I'm active in development of PyWPS (in incubation) - OGC WPS
implementation and recently, I came across REST API for geospatial data
design and this topic is resonating in OGC too - maybe my input could be
relevant.

So, if there would be free slot, I would like to pick it up for the next
year.

Thank you

Jachym

Dne 6.2.2017 v 15:25 Arnulf Christl napsal(a):

> Dear Board,
> this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.
>
> Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through
> the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There
> are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove
> any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback
> about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)).
> Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.
>
> Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards
> work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public
> comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal
> committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But
> for now we keep things running as they are.
>
> Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but
> I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good
> work and support!
>
> Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the
> selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison
> officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!
>
> Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through
> this list or individually.
>
> Thanks & all the best,
> Arnulf
>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

--
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: [hidden email]
twitter: @jachymc
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Arnulf Christl-3
Hey Jachym,
thank you for your interest and yes, you are welcome to request the OGC
for a free Individual Membership as per our MoU with the OGC.

Next step for you is to follow their policies and procedures and sign an
Individual Membership form declaring that you do not work for a company
/ sign over your IP to an organization which could itself become an OGC
member etc. Debbie or Barabara will fill you in on the details.

Once done please come back to this list and let us know what date your
term ends so that we can update the membership page.

Thanks and best regards,
Arnulf


On 09.02.2017 20:47, Jáchym Čepický wrote:

> Hi Arnulf (and all others)
>
> I would like to formally ask for one slot OSGeo has reserved by OGC.
> Thought I do not have any fixed plan of concrete steps I would like to
> do or to contribute to, I would like to give it a try and see, what are
> the benefits.
>
> I'm active in development of PyWPS (in incubation) - OGC WPS
> implementation and recently, I came across REST API for geospatial data
> design and this topic is resonating in OGC too - maybe my input could be
> relevant.
>
> So, if there would be free slot, I would like to pick it up for the next
> year.
>
> Thank you
>
> Jachym
>
> Dne 6.2.2017 v 15:25 Arnulf Christl napsal(a):
>> Dear Board,
>> this is to update you on the activities around the MoU with the OGC.
>>
>> Currently four OSGeo members have access to closed OGC groups through
>> the Individual Membership slots as per the MoU with the OGC [1]. There
>> are currently two vacant slots so there seems to be no need to remove
>> any of the current members (even although they give way less feedback
>> about what they are doing than agreed on in the rules (nudge, nudge)).
>> Every now and then activity can be seen, if only be inference.
>>
>> Also, the OGC has opened up considerably and more and more standards
>> work groups chose to work with public repositories and allowing public
>> comments early in the process. So maybe the need for this informal
>> committee is decreasing would mean that we accomplished our mission. But
>> for now we keep things running as they are.
>>
>> Michael Gerlek stepped down from the selection committee (ages ago), but
>> I never got around to reporting this. Thanks Michael for all the good
>> work and support!
>>
>> Bruce Bannerman has kindly offered to step up and help out with the
>> selection progress of OSGeo individuals, to function as a second liaison
>> officer to the OGC and help out with list administrivia. Thanks, Bruce!
>>
>> Anything else you need to know please contact Bruce or myself through
>> this list or individually.
>>
>> Thanks & all the best,
>> Arnulf
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_Membership
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>

--
http://metaspatial.net
Spatially enabling your business.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by Jachym Cepicky
Hi Bob,

Did anyone get back to you on this?

Sorry, I've been offline for a week or so.

Bruce


On 15 Feb 2017, at 04:04, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

I’ve been approached about taking up one of the OGC slots.  I too am curious about the benefits and how participation would benefit and play out over the long run.  

I’m a long time open source advocate and a long time meber of a number of the OSGeo list serves.  I have a number of related contacts related to the use of open source in local government as well as a long time user and promoter of OGC specifications for sharing data.  I’m also a founding member of a nonprofit dedicated to the promotion and use of OSGeo and OGC practices in general.

I’m interested in particpating if a slot is still available.

bobb


On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Jáchym Čepický <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Arnulf (and all others)

I would like to formally ask for one slot OSGeo has reserved by OGC. Thought I do not have any fixed plan of concrete steps I would like to do or to contribute to, I would like to give it a try and see, what are the benefits.

I'm active in development of PyWPS (in incubation) - OGC WPS implementation and recently, I came across REST API for geospatial data design and this topic is resonating in OGC too - maybe my input could be relevant.

So, if there would be free slot, I would like to pick it up for the next year.

Thank you

Jachym



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Bob Basques
Bruce, 

Yes, i've just been too busy to follow up.  Have a conference the rest of this week too.

I'll be able to hit it next week though.

Thanks for keeping track of me thpugh.

Bobb

On Feb 22, 2017 6:30 PM, "Bruce Bannerman" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Bob,

Did anyone get back to you on this?

Sorry, I've been offline for a week or so.

Bruce


On 15 Feb 2017, at 04:04, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

I’ve been approached about taking up one of the OGC slots.  I too am curious about the benefits and how participation would benefit and play out over the long run.  

I’m a long time open source advocate and a long time meber of a number of the OSGeo list serves.  I have a number of related contacts related to the use of open source in local government as well as a long time user and promoter of OGC specifications for sharing data.  I’m also a founding member of a nonprofit dedicated to the promotion and use of OSGeo and OGC practices in general.

I’m interested in particpating if a slot is still available.

bobb


On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Jáchym Čepický <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Arnulf (and all others)

I would like to formally ask for one slot OSGeo has reserved by OGC. Thought I do not have any fixed plan of concrete steps I would like to do or to contribute to, I would like to give it a try and see, what are the benefits.

I'm active in development of PyWPS (in incubation) - OGC WPS implementation and recently, I came across REST API for geospatial data design and this topic is resonating in OGC too - maybe my input could be relevant.

So, if there would be free slot, I would like to pick it up for the next year.

Thank you

Jachym



_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Board] OGC MoU and Individual Membership slots

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by Bruce Bannerman-3
Colleagues,

I'm happy for Bob to take this last slot with OGC. We will do this, unless there is someone else with a pressing need to work with OGC teams.

Please speak up. If I don't hear by the end of next week, we'll proceed with Bob for this slot.

I think that we'll need to look at how we are assigning these memberships for future engagements.

I for one, will be very interested to hear what benefit our memberships are giving us and what we are able to contribute back to OGC in return.

I understand from OGC that we have a number of our other OSGeo Individual OGC memberships due to expire:

- Jeff McKenna, ended 9 Dec 16
- Gerald Fenoy, ends 30 Sep 17
- Martin Isenburg, ends 6 Jul 17
- Dimitris Kotzinos, ends 16 Oct 17
- Jachym Čepický, ends 10 Feb 18

I propose that we look at an Expression of Interest process for the above renewals, perhaps as a single EOI for all of them.

There may be other OSGeo members and projects who could also benefit from the collaboration and would like the opportunity to participate within the OGC processes.

Thoughts?

Bruce


On 28 Feb 2017, at 02:05, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bruce,

Now that I’m back, I guess I never did see a followup, must have been me imagining it.  :c)

bobb

On Feb 22, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Bruce Bannerman <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Bob,

Did anyone get back to you on this?

Sorry, I've been offline for a week or so.

Bruce


On 15 Feb 2017, at 04:04, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

I’ve been approached about taking up one of the OGC slots.  I too am curious about the benefits and how participation would benefit and play out over the long run.  

I’m a long time open source advocate and a long time meber of a number of the OSGeo list serves.  I have a number of related contacts related to the use of open source in local government as well as a long time user and promoter of OGC specifications for sharing data.  I’m also a founding member of a nonprofit dedicated to the promotion and use of OSGeo and OGC practices in general.

I’m interested in particpating if a slot is still available.

bobb


On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Jáchym Čepický <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Arnulf (and all others)

I would like to formally ask for one slot OSGeo has reserved by OGC. Thought I do not have any fixed plan of concrete steps I would like to do or to contribute to, I would like to give it a try and see, what are the benefits.

I'm active in development of PyWPS (in incubation) - OGC WPS implementation and recently, I came across REST API for geospatial data design and this topic is resonating in OGC too - maybe my input could be relevant.

So, if there would be free slot, I would like to pick it up for the next year.

Thank you

Jachym




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein





_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards