[Geomoose-users] OSGeo Incubation progress

[Eli Adam]

>>>   Project documentation is available under an open license.
>>>   Eg. Creative Commons
>>
>> I don't think that we explicitly license our documentation.  This is
>> personally what I prefer (or to use our code license for docs too),
>> but I am out of sync with the world on this, so if someone has an
>> idea, suggest it.
>
> I think we may have multiple types of docs to confuse things more.  The wiki and the "official" docs/website in SVN.  Also, the naturaldocs are directly derivative of the code and probably shouldn't be CC.  Personally, I don't understand why document licenses are different than code licenses.  "Who/what" interprets the artifact seems like something too ill defined to split licenses over.  (What about a search engine that reads the docs or a person that reads/learns from the code?)  In any case, our docs are "open".  I think OSGeo's main concern is preventing things like (past versions of) numpy that had free code, but no docs, unless you paid.

So at least you and I think that we should license our docs under our
existing code license.  In all cases, they are certainly 'open'.

>>>       The project uses public communication channels for decision making to maintain transparency.
>>>       E.g. archived email list(s), archived IRC channel(s), public issue tracker.
>>
>> We could be slightly better on communication, I think that we are improving.
>
> Is the #geomoose IRC room archived somewhere?

No.  I have some logs locally on various computers but have made no
attempt to really log it.  If the channel is active, we could ask Gary
Sherman to send his bot and post the archives as he kindly does for
some other OSGeo Projects.

>
>>
>>>   The project follows a documented testing process.
>>>   Ideally, this includes both automated and manual testing
>>
>> More than Incubation, this could really help us.  I have some mediocre
>> ideas on this (like bash/curl/diff/etc to make autotests), if others
>> have good ideas, I'd be interested in pursuing that.
>>
>
> The "hard" part is what I'd really like to automatically test is the JavaScript part across multiple browsers.  Is there such a thing as a build-bot for a browser based app?

>From this post,
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/blog/2009.html#November_11_2009_2   I
learned about http://browsershots.org/ which is at least a start.

Eli