No subject

gvSIG. For me the association should support any positive gvSIG
related action and in the case of gvSIG CE it is not. It results in an
association that does not represent gvSIG community but that has its
own interests on it.

Furthermore, the association DO has a strong weight in the community
and it is not clear (at least for me) how it works internally. What
consequences could happen if tomorrow someone with destructive
interests takes a top post in the association? Well, if the
association is independent from the community and has its own election
processes I think it should not have such a strong influence in the
community because otherwise, the project is not driven by the
community.

Also, the fact that most of the people in the association is Spanish,
and belong to the CIT or are clients of the CIT makes one wonder if
some clientelism dynamics take place there. This is a very serious
issue. I DO know clientelism dynamics took place when CIT had some
money, not sure if now it's the case anymore, but I would bet on that.

For all this, currently I'm personally aligned with those that prefer
to give the code to OSGEO instead of to the association. I signed the
CLA because in the end, the code is what matters and developers try to
do their best to collaborate, despite the guys that try to control the
uncontrollable.

Hope these thoughts help to improve the project. Of course don't give
them much importance, they are just my particular perceptions.

What I regret is that two efforts that improve gvSIG ecosystem do not
talk more constructively. There are conflict resolving techniques but
no one here seems to care about it.

Sad.

Wow, next 50 lines I write will be in Java...