Given the all-volunteer makeup of Geoshare and its minimal budget, the influence of the Board is limited. Really, the driving forces behind the acceptance of the standard are the vendors and end-users themselves.

Many Geoshare members are skeptical that any new technology would actually progress to the point that Geoshare or its function is replaced within the 3 year time frame. This skepticism is based on the following :

The failure of the Geoshare to Epicentre Migration project (GEMSIG) where it was realized that the problem of migration was growing faster than the solution.

Many of the problems which Geoshare has faced are independent of the Geoshare data model or transport mechanism. Any emerging technology will have to tackle the same roadblocks in the data exchange arena.

Software vendors prefer direct links between their products and the major software suites rather than true interoperability.

I do not believe that the Board intended to say that Geoshare is to be allowed to die a slow and orderly death! The message was, I believe, that the board took a proactive stance to assess the state of Geoshare and based on that assessment, the strategy of maintain the status quo while monitoring other initiatives is realistic.

Geoshare is a mature technology. It can be maintained with the available manpower and funding. If the board actually accomplishes the specific items in its strategy, it could create more interest in Geoshare. The Board will focus its attention on communication rather than technology. Personally, I believe that there is untapped potential in Geoshare. However, the driving force for realizing that potential must come from the users.