[Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model . . .

[Eli Adam]

Bob,

    Can you put it on the wiki page so that we can all read, follow, and interact?  

http://geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GM_Project_Goverance_Model

Also, saves others from duplicating your work.

Bests, Eli

>>> "Bob Basques" <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> 03/11/11 6:54 AM >>>

All, 

Even though I haven't been posting here, I have been doing some homework on the GeoMoose governance stuff.   Mostly meeting and talking with princlples of other projects as well as GeoMoose project participants. 

It's still ongoing, and I've got a much better line on a plan of attack moving forward. 

Still working it . . . . 

bobb 



>>> Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> wrote:


I'd love to come, having never been to the Pacific Northwest ... sponsors? LOL.





From: DEAN ANDERSON <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us>
To: Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us; geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 11:21:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model . . .

Bob

I am hopeful that we will get our project spec done by May 1.  This should leave about 2 months for hard programming for Houston Engineering.  This is all vapor at this point but what I hope we can accomplish with our phase 2 project is...

1. Contribute to fixing known bugs in core.
2. Contribute to adding enhancements as agreed upon to core.
3. Formalize how Oregon Consortium deals with extensions and how that fits with the greater GeoMoose population.
4. Expand capabilities through extensions.

This gives us about 2 months to agree to our project. The Oregon Consortium will be meeting at the GIS-IN-Action conference in Portland Oregon at the end of March.  Anyone who wants to attend is more then welcome.  We may not have all the parts in place to make it all work but... our group has been very supportive of GeoMoose and participating in the greater community.

Hope this helps...

Dean

>>> "Bob Basques" 03/02/11 5:04 PM >>>

Dean, 


Excellent on the project offer.  What timeline are you anticipating?  I'm thinking it may take some time to get certain pieces into place and agreed on by everyone, which I think is mostly desirable for everyone's benefit in the long run. 


The process may move along slightly slower than in the recent past as well for obvious reasons.  But I think building the process out around an actual project will be a good one overall. 


bobb 






>>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> wrote:


Bob 

  

Yes I think this summarizes our discussions in Oregon as well.  A few issues that need to be addressed in the process. 

  

1. Process to enhance core software. 

2. Process to standardize share extensions. 

3. Expand/standardize technical developer documentation. 

  

We (Oregon Consortium) would be happy to put forth our upcoming "Phase 2" development project as way to test the process. 

  

  

Dean Anderson 

IT Director 

Polk County

>>> "Bob Basques" <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> 3/2/2011 7:08 AM >>>

All, 


I'm starting a new thread here to start up a discussion related to implementing some sort of governance model for GeoMoose.  Believe it or not, the project has gotten to where it is in a fairly fractured fashion.   There have been champions of the product from different perspectives along the way as well, developers, salesman, usability (myself), and flexibilty among others.  Each of these capabilities champions have pushed the product to where it is today in a very informal collaborative environment.   


I believe we're collectively at a point where the next level of operations needs to be implemented and some formality to some tasks need to be implemented.  Roadmap and feature items need to be recorded and prioritized, as well as vetting of these additions, how will they affect the product moving forward, should they be core or add-on (plugin) constructs, etc.   A capabilitites proposal and voting system needs to be implemented in some fashion as well.  I'm not suggesting jumping straight to a overly strict process, but a process does need to be described for each of these tasks inorder not to fracture resources and development aims.  Some of these topics have already been addressed on the list and some still need to be discussed further. 


In general, I'm asking here, is it fair to assume that we're all in agreement with the above listed organizational points needed to be put more formally into place?   Yes+ or No- to  further discussing moving the GeoMoose project to a more structured one. 


If you are on this list, you can vote. 


Thanks 


Bob Basques 
City of Saint Paul