[OSGeo-Discuss] FW: code of conduct: another real case
Bruce Bannerman
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 18:19:21 PDT 2015
Hi Cameron,
I was very surprised to see the email below. It seems to me that the issue
may just be a simple misunderstanding by someone, not a deliberate act of
sabotage.
I'll add some comments as the OSGeo Incubation Mentor for the Rasdaman
project:
Thanks for digging out the reference at [1]. That is indeed that latest
formal advice that has been provided on incubation.
Since then Peter and I have been in private discussion as to how we can
move this forward and have agreed on a joint approach.
Both Peter and my spare time is very limited however and this is causing
delays:
- In addition to his day job, Peter is doing invaluable work extending
open spatial standards within OGC and W3C forums; and
- I'm similarly busy in a new role, team and large project, together
with commitments to WMO, OGC and W3C.
Consequently our volunteer time is scarce and this inevitably causes delays.
Peter and I believe that Rasdaman is ready for graduation from Incubation.
However, Peter and I need to ensure that we adequately describe why we
believe this, as per the advice at [1].
Regarding the OSGeo Incubation Process:
- I can appreciate the frustration that Peter is obviously experiencing.
I can see this developing within gvSIG as well;
- We may wish to look at our graduation process. It is currently quite
subjective in many places and open to interpretation by the Incubation
Committee members. I can see that the same project could conceivably
graduate or not, depending on who is a member of the committee at the time
of the application.
- I do not see that Rasdaman has been unfairly singled out in its
graduation attempt and stand by my comments at [1];
- I'm seeing similar Incubation Committee comments in the gvSIG
Graduation process to those that were provided on Rasdaman's first attempt
at graduation;
- Personally I think that a key issue that affects both gvSIG and
Rasdaman relates to commercial involvement with the projects and open
decision making processes. Daniel Morrissette, Evan Rouault and yourself
summarised this issue well in the thread at [2]. We still don't have this
right within the Rasdaman Community, but we are heading in the right
direction and there is a definite willingness to address the issue; and
- The Rasdaman view of the OSGeo relationship may be found at [3]. There
are some valid criticisms of the process, together with some selectively
edited excerpts from emails, e.g. the update on 2015-09-14 update
references a private email between myself and Peter, where I forwarded the
email thread at [2] with the covering text
- "This is something that we'll need to work on before we put Rasdaman up
for graduation again.
I'm still buried in my priority task, so I have not had time to look
at
incubation issues yet. Sorry."
Regarding the Rasdaman Intellectual Property issue:
- I believe that Peter may be referring to the comment at [3] dated
2015-07-25.
- I have no knowledge of how this eventuated, however I'd make the
observation that it could be seen as being a badge of honour to be
classified as an OSGeo Project. That was the reason for the OSGeo
application in the first place, wasn't it? So I'm not sure what the actual
issue is here and will wait for Peter's comment;
- From my view as a layman, the IP in the Rasdaman source code clearly
rests with Peter Baumann and Rasdaman GmbH as per:
- The Rasdaman License as described at [4];
- The Rasdaman Contributer agreement as described at [5]; and
- The Rasdaman Copywrite header as described at [6].
- Therefore, I don't see that there is anything to give back with
regards to the ownership of the software. I will make the observation
though, that as the software is licensed under GPL and L/GPL that it is
possible for anyone to fork the software.
@Peter,
What have I missed?
On re-reading your post, I suspect that you may be referring to control of
the Rasdaman Project's OpenHub Project repository and that is what you
would like to be given back.
On a personal note:
Over the five plus years that I have been involved with Rasdaman as the
OSGeo Project Mentor, I have learned a lot from the Incubation Process and
admire what Peter and the Rasdaman Community have achieved. This project
and software has incredible potential and is a credit to all involved.
I would be sorry to see Rasdaman leave the OSGeo fold, particularly if the
cause is a misunderstanding.
Bruce
[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-April/002695.html
[2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-September/002787.html
[3] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeo
[4] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/License
[5] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/ContributorAgreement
[6] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/CodeProvenance
On 18/09/2015 07:21, "discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org on behalf of Cameron
> Shorter" <discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org on behalf of
> cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Peter,
> >I think your request to have ownership of Rasdaman "corrected" to be
> >owned by GmbH is reasonable, especially since the license of code I
> >assume shows reference to GmbH? I also assume this could be confirmed if
> >someone were to check the lineage of code commits?
> >
> >I'd hope that this can be resolved without needing to refer to the CoC
> >Committee, which would typically deal with cases such as personal
> >slander. I realise that Jeff suggested this committee, but he also
> >suggested providing more information - which would be required should
> >this be a CoC issue.
> >
> >I'd be inclined to suspect this issue could be resolved easily? I'd also
> >suspect that this is an accident rather than foul play by someone? At
> >the very least, we should assume innocence until proven guilty of any
> >person involved.
> >
> >With regards to reference to incubation of rasdaman. Last correspondence
> >on this matter [1] has been that the incubation committee members have
> >provided feedback and actions to address before rasdaman is ready to be
> >incubated. We are waiting for such actions to be complete.
> >
> >[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-April/002695.html
> >
> >On 18/09/2015 2:21 am, Peter Baumann wrote:
> >> Hello community,
> >>
> >> here is another real case that I would like to raise.
> >>
> >> rasdaman [0] is listed on OpenHub [1], like many of us, with owner
> >>rasdaman GmbH
> >> set originally. By coincidence I found that OSGeo has claimed rasdaman
> >>at some
> >> time in the past.
> >>
> >> To my total surprise, as rasdaman is in incubation since about 5 years
> >>now [2],
> >> and since quite some time OSGeo refuses graduation requiring this and
> >>that extra
> >> documentation.
> >>
> >> I find this undercover misappropriation a gross violation of
> >>professional ethics
> >> and request to immediately "give back" the project as a remedial
> >>action. I could
> >> do it myself, but recently OpenHub requires a phone number to be
> >>entered to
> >> which, as blog comments show, spam will get sent. IMO it is on OSGeo to
> >>bring
> >> this sacrifice.
> >>
> >> Actually, I know who has "stolen ownership", but will not disclose
> >>identity
> >> publicly following suggested practice.
> >>
> >> Rather, I am seeking contact to and investigation by the CoC Committee
> >>(or
> >> whoever is in charge).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> [0] http://www.rasdaman.org
> >> [1] https://www.openhub.net/p/rasdaman
> >> [2] http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeo
> >>
> >> PS: On the side, this IMHO justifies an amendment of the CoC rules to
> >>prevent
> >> such a case in future.
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Cameron Shorter,
> >Software and Data Solutions Manager
> >LISAsoft
> >Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> >26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
> >
> >P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss mailing list
> >Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> >http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150918/d774b58c/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list