Ok...
as it looks like there are no more oppinions then here the actual state:
S A LPSM E
0 + 0.5 + 0 + 0.75 - 1 + 0 - 1 = -0.75
so we have a "NO" for an OSGEO join, right now
Hovewer, due to the analyis of the requirements we know now where we
need to do some first improvem
hello,
i am of the opinion -1. until such a time all outstanding issues are
addressed and resolved, and all is consolidated and cleaned, and clear
direction is sought out, reduced to mutual understanding(short-mid-
long term) by those involved, in fully disclosed and understood
pecking ord
Hi Stefan,
+0
I think joining OSGEO should be fine for OpenJUMP (more visibility, more
developpers, more users...), but I'm not sure we have enough human
resources to move on.
As far as I'm concerned, I have'nt contributed for a while, but I'll
keep helping when I can, whatever the decision is.
Stefan,
Thank you for all of the hard work looking into this. I think the idea
of joining OSGeo has some good overall support, but it appears, at
least initally, that we lack the muscle to get this done.
I know that you and I could tackle most of the work, but I think have
another person and/or p
+0
I can help with some of the tasks that I have experience with, like
preparing marketing material. My primary contribution will continue to be
coding, especially to address features requested by actual users. I can
make time to support limited OSGeo project committee duties as requested.
rega
Stefan Steiniger wrote:
Hi,
> The only thing I am personally struggling is the definition of release
> rules and a development plan if that is required (as this would play
> against our "I contribute when I like" idea)
>
> I am awaiting your coments and a OJ-Joins-OSEGEO decision (+1: yes, 0:
Dear OJ user/developer.
I send this email to the devel list, as here rather the core people are
listening and this is also a discussion list for us.
Now, I have read all the docs required for an OSGEO incubation. I will
attach a rather lenghtly file where I added comments to the different
qu
