As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
Thanks, Jody. I’m curious, under ideal circumstances, what budget is required to get it fully under control and implemented? In other words if we were to set a fundraising target, what would be a solid number?
As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
I set a couple targets on the GSIP-176, however they are only a wild-guess (as we would still need anyone to respond to an RFP call).
I have updated the GSIP page to make the target/progress more clear:
baseline: 5000 budget from osgeo
target 1: 10000 funding raising
target 2: 15000 funding target
Basically if we do not meet the first target 1 I do not think the PSC should bother issuing an RFP. By the same token if we get a bunch of proposals in outside of our range we may not proceed.
I had several chats on this subject at foss4g many groups were hopeful of skipping cite compatibility for WFS/WMS/WCS/WPS and wanting to focus on openapi. While I like the enthusiasm it will be some time yet before those standards are ready, and even when they are we would like to keep supporting WFS/WFS/WCS/WPS.
Thanks, Jody. I’m curious, under ideal circumstances, what budget is required to get it fully under control and implemented? In other words if we were to set a fundraising target, what would be a solid number?
As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
I set a couple targets on the GSIP-176, however they are only a wild-guess (as we would still need anyone to respond to an RFP call).
I have updated the GSIP page to make the target/progress more clear:
baseline: 5000 budget from osgeo
target 1: 10000 funding raising
target 2: 15000 funding target
Basically if we do not meet the first target 1 I do not think the PSC should bother issuing an RFP. By the same token if we get a bunch of proposals in outside of our range we may not proceed.
I had several chats on this subject at foss4g many groups were hopeful of skipping cite compatibility for WFS/WMS/WCS/WPS and wanting to focus on openapi. While I like the enthusiasm it will be some time yet before those standards are ready, and even when they are we would like to keep supporting WFS/WFS/WCS/WPS.
Thanks, Jody. I’m curious, under ideal circumstances, what budget is required to get it fully under control and implemented? In other words if we were to set a fundraising target, what would be a solid number?
As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
I think we may need a stronger opening, the first sentence is not true:
GeoServer has long been a reference implementation of core OGC Standards: WMS, WFS, and WCS.
Although GeoServer appears on the wiki page we do not qualify as a reference implementation: a) we have not submitted cite test results b) we do not provide a hosted geoserver for the public to test against
Ideas for a first sentence:
Does your organization use OGC protocols to meet interoperability and regulatory requirements? GeoServer build infrastructure needs your help to ensure our project can continue to meet your needs.
Background:
Our website shows “built on standards” listing “certified ogc compliant”, if we wish to keep these stickers we will need to pass the CITE tests. As an example GeoServer was last certified by OpenGeo in 2004, and Boundless in 2012.
Although GeoServer was considered a reference implementation that is no longer the case. OSGeo has offered to provide hosting of a running service if we wish to be recognized as a reference implementation again.
I think we may need a stronger opening, the first sentence is not true:
| GeoServer has long been a reference implementation of core OGC Standards: WMS, WFS, and WCS.
Although GeoServer appears on the wiki page we do not qualify as a reference implementation: a) we have not submitted cite test results b) we do not provide a hosted geoserver for the public to test against
Ideas for a first sentence:
Does your organization use OGC protocols to meet interoperability and regulatory requirements? GeoServer build infrastructure needs your help to ensure our project can continue to meet your needs.
Background:
Our website shows “built on standards” listing “certified ogc compliant”, if we wish to keep these stickers we will need to pass the CITE tests. As an example GeoServer was last certified by OpenGeo in 2004, and Boundless in 2012.
Although GeoServer was considered a reference implementation that is no longer the case. OSGeo has offered to provide hosting of a running service if we wish to be recognized as a reference implementation again.
I set a couple targets on the GSIP-176, however they are only a wild-guess (as we would still need anyone to respond to an RFP call).
I have updated the GSIP page to make the target/progress more clear:
baseline: 5000 budget from osgeo
target 1: 10000 funding raising
target 2: 15000 funding target
Basically if we do not meet the first target 1 I do not think the PSC should bother issuing an RFP. By the same token if we get a bunch of proposals in outside of our range we may not proceed.
I had several chats on this subject at foss4g many groups were hopeful of skipping cite compatibility for WFS/WMS/WCS/WPS and wanting to focus on openapi. While I like the enthusiasm it will be some time yet before those standards are ready, and even when they are we would like to keep supporting WFS/WFS/WCS/WPS.
Thanks, Jody. I’m curious, under ideal circumstances, what budget is required to get it fully under control and implemented? In other words if we were to set a fundraising target, what would be a solid number?
As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
I have thought a bit about hosting a reference implementation, if we just host the server in read-only mode - all that is needed is a machine (which OSGeo has offered to provide). If we host WFS-T (say to pass CITE tests) we would also need the ability to reset the dataset after a test run. I was thinking we could make a demo page for “cite” that could reload the data, or a rest api endpoint.
But yeah the key impediment is someone to provide hardware, even with OSGeo’s offer we then need someone to setup the machine.
It has been really kind of first boundless and now GeoSolutions to provide a machine for the base maps shown on the geoserver.org website.
I think we may need a stronger opening, the first sentence is not true:
| GeoServer has long been a reference implementation of core OGC Standards: WMS, WFS, and WCS.
Although GeoServer appears on the wiki page we do not qualify as a reference implementation: a) we have not submitted cite test results b) we do not provide a hosted geoserver for the public to test against
Ideas for a first sentence:
Does your organization use OGC protocols to meet interoperability and regulatory requirements? GeoServer build infrastructure needs your help to ensure our project can continue to meet your needs.
Background:
Our website shows “built on standards” listing “certified ogc compliant”, if we wish to keep these stickers we will need to pass the CITE tests. As an example GeoServer was last certified by OpenGeo in 2004, and Boundless in 2012.
Although GeoServer was considered a reference implementation that is no longer the case. OSGeo has offered to provide hosting of a running service if we wish to be recognized as a reference implementation again.
I set a couple targets on the GSIP-176, however they are only a wild-guess (as we would still need anyone to respond to an RFP call).
I have updated the GSIP page to make the target/progress more clear:
baseline: 5000 budget from osgeo
target 1: 10000 funding raising
target 2: 15000 funding target
Basically if we do not meet the first target 1 I do not think the PSC should bother issuing an RFP. By the same token if we get a bunch of proposals in outside of our range we may not proceed.
I had several chats on this subject at foss4g many groups were hopeful of skipping cite compatibility for WFS/WMS/WCS/WPS and wanting to focus on openapi. While I like the enthusiasm it will be some time yet before those standards are ready, and even when they are we would like to keep supporting WFS/WFS/WCS/WPS.
Thanks, Jody. I’m curious, under ideal circumstances, what budget is required to get it fully under control and implemented? In other words if we were to set a fundraising target, what would be a solid number?
As some of you probably know, I took it upon myself to raise awareness and try to drum up some funding for the CITE testing automation initiative on LinkedIn. It was gratifying to see all the positive response expressed in Likes and re-shares, but unfortunately that didn’t produce much funding. (Other than my own, I think there was only one more contribution made via PayPal that was set up specifically for this.) So perhaps a subsequent tactic to keep the ball rolling is to leverage the first wave of response, publish a guest blog post on GeoServer site (per Jody’s idea) and socialize via Twitter. I’m happy to adapt the original post if need-be and provide content for the blog.
BTW going forward, I’m also happy to help managing this initiative to completion. I sincerely believe it’s a very important one and certainly have the quals to help.
I added one sentence to separate out “running the tests” from “formal certification”, and added a graph to show current funding progress.
Please check and publish when ready. I don’t want to hit publish myself on the off chance it shows up as published in my name, and I think this will have more impact coming from you
