<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Peter,<br>
<br>
Another (new) thought on this, is some sort of measurement of
"staying" power of a project. If a project, even a small one,
continues to exist with only a few interested parties, should/could
it be acknowledged in some fashion by OSGEO as a viable tool. Even
adding the metrics next to a project might be an interesting
presentation tool, even for the incubated projects, if for no other
reason than to make comparisons between these established projects
and use for deriving incubation criteria.<br>
<br>
All along I've been trying to define a reason to apply the
incubation criteria in a more concerted way, but I just haven't seen
the payoff of incubation (there are obvious awareness aspects),
being part of a relatively small project and putting the required
"OSGEO" upkeep processes in place seems like too much, when the
effort can go into the project itself with more percieved payoff.
The GeoMoose project is small, but stable and it keeps moving along
for example.<br>
<br>
I mentioned the idea way back (A couple of years now??) about the
possibility of having another class of OSGEO recognized project, not
completely incubated, but maybe in the vain of reviewed, or some
such, in some sort of OSGEO sponsored writeup, and "reviewed"
project registry.<br>
<br>
<br>
bobb<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/6/10 11:58 PM, Peter Baumann wrote:
<blockquote id="mid_4CFDCD0C_7000000_jacobs-university_de"
cite="mid:4CFDCD0C.7000000@jacobs-university.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Bob,<br>
<br>
interesting thoughts you raise. BTW, same here - we are in no
hurry
actually. <br>
<br>
I occurs to me: how many projects are in the incubation list, that
is:
waiting for check and decision whether to get incubated or not?
Providing such a list might enhance transparency.<br>
<br>
Probably it's fair to ask about well-defined criteria and metrics.
This
will also be a matter of OSGeo's policy: whether to brand projects
in
retrospect for their achievement, or proactively for their
potential
(such as relevant, stable technology). <br>
<br>
Just some idle thoughts...<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/06/2010 03:46 PM, Bob Basques wrote:
<blockquote id="mid_4CFCA2CA020000A800023CBC_heckle"
cite="mid:4CFCA2CA020000A800023CBC@heckle" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> All, </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> I think the
focus is
a bit unstructured in how OSGEO should be perceiving a project
and
measuring it's success. Projects come and go, and I think a
better (or
one that should be receiving more attention) evaluation
criteria should
be how much activity a project receives and how often it is
updated,
if this falls off I would suspect that there is some sort of
slow down
in the project development and address it then. The emphasis
on wide
community participation while good, is not necessarily the
only or best
way to go. More than one project under the OSGEO banner
started out
as an individual effort. </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> I'm in somewhat
of a
similar situation with advocating GeoMoose which has been on
the
Incubation list for while now, mostly for reason other than
activity,
it's really rather stable as far as a contributing community
goes, I've
not pursued the incubation stuff actively because of these
types of
topics.. No big hurry on my (our) part to get through
incubation, but
this thread has brought into focus, one of the shortcomings (I
see) in
the incubation (evaluation of a project) process. I think
it's more
about activity and less about who(m) is involved. </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> BTW, one metric
that
I think would be nice in graduated projects, would be some
sort of
activity or commit frequency to code, I'm on more than one
list and see
some long periods of inactivity from some of them from time to
time, is
there. Does (should) low frequency of edits mean the
development is
done, if so, then what? Is it a tired (or idle) project and
should be
pushed to the OSGEO old programs page :c). </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> Anyway, just
sounding off . . . </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> bobb </p>
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> <br>
<br>
>>> "Baumann, Peter" <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de"><p.baumann@jacobs-university.de></a>
wrote:<br>
</p>
<table style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 15px; font-size: 1em;"
bgcolor="#f3f3f3" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(5, 5, 5);
padding-left: 7px;">
<p style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> Hi
Cameron,<br>
<br>
it is true that I am the Principal Architect of
rasdaman and also CEO
of the company, and both appear side by side on
fairs like Intergeo and
FOSSGIS. But it appears that we are mixing two
different things now.<br>
<br>
First issue is provision and maintenance of the
open-source rasdaman
code. This is warranted by my research group at
Jacobs University. I
see no difference to any other university-led
project here. The fact
that there is a company _in addition_ does not at
all deteriorate the
above statement.<br>
<br>
Which gets me to the second facet of your argument:
too few committers.
Admitted: As we had discussed, this is the case
currently as I am very
careful in giving this right to other developers.
They need to convince
me about their skills, commitment, and ethics first.
But we are
actively trying to spot suitable candidates, and I
hope we will have
more committers soon. It is part of our community
building, and any
OSGeo decision certainly will have impact one or the
other way.<br>
<br>
So your argument seems to say, in the end, that
further external
committers need to be found. Totally agreed from my
side. Would such a
broadening of maintenance settle your concerns?<br>
<br>
-Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: Cameron Shorter [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:30 AM<br>
To: Baumann, Peter<br>
Cc: Bruce Bannerman; OSGeo-incubator<br>
Subject: Re: Is rasdaman suitable/ready for OSGeo
incubation?<br>
<br>
Peter,<br>
The (possibly incorrect) understanding I have is
that you, being one<br>
person, have been the central driver behind
rasdaman, sometimes under<br>
the banner of the university and sometimes under
your company.<br>
<br>
However, my key concern from OSGeo's point of view
is that the current<br>
link with a proprietary license will hinder growth
of a robust
community.<br>
Other OSGeo Incubation members may suggest
otherwise.<br>
<br>
On 04/12/10 13:51, Baumann, Peter wrote:<br>
> Cameron,<br>
><br>
> thanks for all the effort and serious
considerations put into your
looking at rasdaman. I am very grateful about our
discussion - among
others, it has shown me that the description
provided on
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.rasdaman.org">www.rasdaman.org</a>
needs refinement and clarification. I have attempted
to go into that immediately with the "feature
matrix" as a start, but
other places will have to undergo a check as well.<br>
><br>
> About the licensing, let me correct some false
impression. The
open-source rasdaman code is _not_ maintained by a
company, but by a
university. So the conclusion that further
development of rasdaman
would depend on one company is wrong in two
respects:<br>
> - it is not one, but two entities supporting
rasdaman<br>
> - it is not a company which is the main
promoter of open source
rasdaman, but a university<br>
><br>
> Hope that helps to clarify situation a bit. I
feel it very
fruitful that now we have come to a discussion, hope
we can continue
this fruitful exchange.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Peter<br>
><br>
> ________________________________________<br>
> From: Cameron Shorter [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:40 AM<br>
> To: Baumann, Peter; Bruce Bannerman;
OSGeo-incubator<br>
> Subject: Is rasdaman suitable/ready for OSGeo
incubation?<br>
><br>
> I had the pleasure this week of meeting Peter
Baumann, the primary<br>
> author behind rasdaman [1], a dual licensed
raster processing<br>
> application. Along with Bruce Bannerman, we
discussed rasdaman's<br>
> application for OSGeo application (initiated 18
months ago).<br>
><br>
> Understandably, Peter noted some frustration by
the lack of
progress<br>
> moving toward OSGeo Incubation.<br>
><br>
> Since talking to Peter, I've looked at rasdaman
further, and think
that<br>
> rasdaman has some great functionality, but I'm
concerned that the<br>
> current dual license will hamper uptake from
the open source
community.<br>
><br>
> Radaman is provided via an open source
community edition, and then
has<br>
> extensions which are in a proprietary
enterprise edition. [2] My
concern<br>
> is the dual license will substantially reduce
the number of
developers<br>
> prepared to grow the rasdaman developer
community, as there will
be a<br>
> feeling that the prime developer will only
maintain and advance the<br>
> enterprise version.<br>
><br>
> One of the key goals for incubation is to build
a robust developer<br>
> community, with contributors from multiple
organisations, and to
have<br>
> the project grow sustainably. As it stands, I
think that rasdaman's<br>
> licence model will make the project dependent
upon the organisation<br>
> offering the enterprise software, which is
counter to some of OSGeo<br>
> principles.<br>
><br>
> Peter,<br>
> I understand the challenge of finding a
suitable business model and<br>
> deciding whether to go down the proprietary or
open source route.
Yes,<br>
> with Open Source you do get significant
marketing reach and having<br>
> others share development costs. Alternatively,
with proprietary,
you can<br>
> charge for software. If you wish to try to
achieve both, then you
will<br>
> likely end up having to write most/all software
yourself, which
doesn't<br>
> align with OSGeo goals of building a robust
developer community.<br>
> This may be a reason why people on the
incubation committee have
not<br>
> pushed rasdaman forward further.<br>
> If you wish to continue with OSGeo incubation,
I would suggest<br>
> considering adjusting your licence model.<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rasdaman.eecs.jacobs-university.de/trac/rasdaman">http://rasdaman.eecs.jacobs-university.de/trac/rasdaman</a><br>
> [2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rasdaman.eecs.jacobs-university.de/trac/rasdaman/wiki/Features">http://rasdaman.eecs.jacobs-university.de/trac/rasdaman/wiki/Features</a><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Cameron Shorter<br>
> Geospatial Director<br>
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050<br>
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254<br>
><br>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally<br>
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open
Standards and Open Source<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Cameron Shorter<br>
Geospatial Director<br>
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050<br>
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254<br>
<br>
Think Globally, Fix Locally<br>
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards
and Open Source<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Incubator mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><br>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann">www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann</a>
mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:p.baumann@jacobs-university.de">p.baumann@jacobs-university.de</a>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 147737)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rasdaman.com">www.rasdaman.com</a>, mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:baumann@rasdaman.com">baumann@rasdaman.com</a>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>