[Geodata] OpenAerialMap: To what extent does the Geodata committee want to participate?

[Frank Warmerdam]

Jo Walsh wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 11:23:36AM -0500, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>>> I'd definitely be supportive of this use of the foundation to provide
>>> formal support, if the project founders and looking for it. 
>> Essentially, it seems like the current direction of the project puts it
>> into a prime position for it to be 'incubated', rather than being treated as
>> 'helping' a seperate project, and I'd like to know if we're supportive
>> of that.
> 
> Okay, great! At the risk of straying from handwavy supportiveness into 
> process-wanking, here's the start of a wiki page on what the impact
> of, and on, the existing incubator guidelines/criteria would be:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Data_Project_Incubation
> 
> Many of you have more experience of the incubation process for real
> than me, please add thoughts to this. I see there's a Board meeting on
> Friday which might be a good chance to chew on the idea - in the
> abstract with OAM as an example and as a reason to make the effort.
> 
> Hope this is on the right track for you,

Chris / Jo,

I see four likely paths forward:

1) The effort proceeds as an effort of the geodata committee.  No real
specific approval process is required other than the geodata committee
agreeing to take responsibility.

2) The effort incubates as a project of the foundation. Jo's notes on
this are good and I don't see any reason this couldn't happen.  *But*
fundamental to incubation is a healthy community around a project so
the effort would have to get bunch more people (either outside OAM people
or Geodata folks or other enthusiasts) before it would even be credible
for entering incubation.

3) The effort proceeds as an OAM project, and is not under any sort of
OSGeo governance.  OSGeo agrees to provide technical/systems support to
OAM either at the geodata or board level depending on the degree of
officialness we want.

4) Chris proceeds as now, just getting more folks involved informally.


I think how to proceed will depend in part on whether there is or isn't
an actual existing OAM community of any value and whether they want to
be involved.  Assuming there aren't folks likely to be alienated by a
perceived take over of this by OSGeo, then I'd say operate it under
the responsibility of the geodata committee which would essentially leave
Chris in charge and help/contribute as practical.  If a real community
grows up around the effort consider incubation as a step towards greater
independence for the effort.

 From my perspective, the most important thing is to not screw up the
"lets just do something" dynamic, while providing a means for more folks
to get involved.

At an appropriate time, I'd love to see OSGeo make some effort to get
the word out about this effort (spotlight on the web site, announcements,
press release, call for involvement, journal article, etc).

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org