Subject: Re: [osgeo4w-dev] [Board] Writing up OSGeo
priorities





On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Cameron Shorter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/13 03:38, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Il 01/03/2013 15:18, Jeff McKenna ha scritto:

4) Supporting packaging/distribution of our projects.  The Board
realizes the importance of packages such as OSGeoLive, and is willing to
provide financial support where possible.
IMHO, osgeo4w is one of the most visible and important direct contribution of osgeo
to the cause. Currently is badly understaffed, mostly based on voultary work, and as
a result many packages are not up to date, which gives several problems to our users.
My suggestion is to give this project more resources.

Paolo,
I agree that osgeo4w is an excellent initiative, and I'd love to see it excel. However, I don't think OSGeo throwing money at the project is the path to success. What is required is one of two dedicated volunteers to put in some hard hours to push the project forward, which in turn would attract a greater community.
Related to funding priorities, please refer back to:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2013-02-26#Support_initiatives_which_support_themselves

Folks,
I will note that I think providing supportive funding for OSGeo4W does count as supporting initiatives that support themselves.  For me this means support efforts that have already demonstratedcommunity interest amoung users and contributors.  I think OSGeo4W has done both. 
I must admit I'm not absolutely certain what the best way is to move OSGeo4W forward.  Given the right person interestedin working on the project full time (or a substantial part time)at a "scrappy" price, I'd push for funding but I'm not sure that such a person exists. 
There are also some technical direction issues withOSGeo4W that remain open.  - Should we stay focused on just 32bit or add/switch to 64bit?  - Should we do "complete refreshes" every could of   years instead of the package by package updating    that works well at the high level but not so well down   in the low level packages (like GDAL).  - Do we continue to invest in the existing Cygwin derived  installer?
Anyways, I don't want to dive into great detail on the boardlist, but I do think OSGeo4W is worthy of OSGeo funding  if the project had a clear plan how such funding would work.   
Best regards,--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [email protected]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________
osgeo4w-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev



Programming list archiving by: Enterprise Git Hosting