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<jdeolive@anonymised.com> 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
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
--
Chris Holmes
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.