<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>+1<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 23/03/13 7:36 AM, "Daniel Morissette" <<a href="dmorissette@mapgears.com">dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'>Same here, +1. Thank you Tom for providing the extra details and I'm<BR>
looking forward to finding out more about pycsw.<BR>
<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 13-03-22 4:05 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<BR>
> Based on Tom's description of downstream community, I'm confident that<BR>
> the pycsw project has sufficient interest that it is set to become an<BR>
> important Open Source project for a long time to come.<BR>
> I'm +1 for bringing pycsw into incubation.<BR>
><BR>
> On 23/03/2013 7:01 AM, Tom Kralidis wrote:<BR>
>> Cameron: thanks for the ping.<BR>
>> For reference, the initial application can be found at<BR>
>> <a href="http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029">http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029</a><BR>
>> To elaborate on Cameron's comments:<BR>
>> - pycsw powers GeoNode (<a href="http://geonode.org/">http://geonode.org/</a>) CSW server functionality<BR>
>> - pycsw powers Open Data Catalogue<BR>
>> (<a href="https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog">https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog</a>) CSW server<BR>
>> functionality. ODC is part of Code for America<BR>
>> (<a href="http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6">http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6</a>)<BR>
>> - pycsw has been chosen to power CKAN (<a href="http://ckan.org/">http://ckan.org/</a>) CSW server<BR>
>> functionality, replacing the current CSW component. Integration is in<BR>
>> progress<BR>
>> (<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html">http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html</a>).<BR>
>> CKAN will power the next iteration of the US data.gov project<BR>
>> (<a href="http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/">http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/</a>)<BR>
>> The abovementioned projects have significant and active communities,<BR>
>> and as a result some pycsw activity and discussion naturally happens<BR>
>> in those spaces.<BR>
>> Hope this helps. And looking forward to the incubation requirements<BR>
>> being flushed out and more clearly articulated moving forward.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> ----------------------------------------<BR>
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:23:52 +1100<BR>
>>> From: <a href="cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a><BR>
>>> To: <a href="sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com">sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com</a><BR>
>>> CC: <a href="Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a>; <a href="gcpp.kalxas@gmail.com">gcpp.kalxas@gmail.com</a>;<BR>
>>> <a href="tomkralidis@hotmail.com">tomkralidis@hotmail.com</a><BR>
>>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation<BR>
>>> process<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW<BR>
>>> included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them.<BR>
>>> I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation,<BR>
>>> as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions<BR>
>>> about community.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:<BR>
>>>> The message below should have gone to the whole group.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> Landon<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<BR>
>>>> From: Landon Blake <<a href="sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com">sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com</a>><BR>
>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM<BR>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process<BR>
>>>> To: Stephen Woodbridge <<a href="woodbri@swoodbridge.com">woodbri@swoodbridge.com</a>><BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a<BR>
>>>> "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I<BR>
>>>> agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the<BR>
>>>> open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to<BR>
>>>> be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the<BR>
>>>> requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit<BR>
>>>> that flexibility.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> I would recommend the following steps:<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community<BR>
>>>> surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we<BR>
>>>> come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the<BR>
>>>> projects seeking incubation.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and<BR>
>>>> I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before<BR>
>>>> incubation, if necessary.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> Landon<BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>><BR>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge<BR>
>>>> <<a href="woodbri@swoodbridge.com">woodbri@swoodbridge.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
>>>>> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:<BR>
>>>>>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:<BR>
>>>>>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?<BR>
>>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation<BR>
>>>>>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project<BR>
>>>>>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is<BR>
>>>>>>> happy<BR>
>>>>>>> to assist) I am cool with it.<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people<BR>
>>>>>> seem to<BR>
>>>>>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against<BR>
>>>>>> pycsw?)<BR>
>>>>>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the<BR>
>>>>>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open<BR>
>>>>>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is<BR>
>>>>>> important for<BR>
>>>>>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before<BR>
>>>>>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,<BR>
>>>>>> but it is an important factor to me.<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and<BR>
>>>>>> healthy<BR>
>>>>>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation.<BR>
>>>>>> This<BR>
>>>>>> is still at the top of our checklist:<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> <a href="http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html">http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html</a><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my<BR>
>>>>>> own<BR>
>>>>>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of<BR>
>>>>>> every<BR>
>>>>>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this<BR>
>>>>>> with<BR>
>>>>>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for<BR>
>>>>>> instance<BR>
>>>>>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> <a href="http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html">http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html</a><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open<BR>
>>>>>> communication<BR>
>>>>>> on the lists when it entered incubation:<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> <a href="http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html">http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html</a><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about<BR>
>>>>>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to<BR>
>>>>>> hope<BR>
>>>>>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation<BR>
>>>>>> because<BR>
>>>>>> of that specific requirement.<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated,<BR>
>>>>>> you will<BR>
>>>>>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already<BR>
>>>>>> obvious that they met the community requirements.<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to<BR>
>>>>>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a<BR>
>>>>>> decent<BR>
>>>>>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of<BR>
>>>>>> people)<BR>
>>>>>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based<BR>
>>>>>> on the<BR>
>>>>>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering<BR>
>>>>>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and<BR>
>>>>>> still<BR>
>>>>>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the<BR>
>>>>>> guys<BR>
>>>>>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them<BR>
>>>>>> and am<BR>
>>>>>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the<BR>
>>>>>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw<BR>
>>>>>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already<BR>
>>>>>> and we<BR>
>>>>>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw<BR>
>>>>>> project can give us an update?<BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>><BR>
>>>>>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this<BR>
>>>>>> committee,<BR>
>>>>>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community<BR>
>>>>>> requirement<BR>
>>>>>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this<BR>
>>>>>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,<BR>
>>>>>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the<BR>
>>>>>> change.<BR>
>>>>> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is<BR>
>>>>> mostly<BR>
>>>>> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has<BR>
>>>>> been very<BR>
>>>>> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is<BR>
>>>>> another project which is in much better shape having a good<BR>
>>>>> community of<BR>
>>>>> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real<BR>
>>>>> struggle to<BR>
>>>>> get things done and to build any momentum.<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>>>> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of<BR>
>>>>> any<BR>
>>>>> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of<BR>
>>>>> individuals) as<BR>
>>>>> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that<BR>
>>>>> driving<BR>
>>>>> force leaving and having the project collapse.<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>>>> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not<BR>
>>>>> followed it,<BR>
>>>>> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong<BR>
>>>>> community. Being<BR>
>>>>> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is<BR>
>>>>> clear<BR>
>>>>> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is<BR>
>>>>> needed<BR>
>>>>> for a self sustaining community.<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>>>> -Steve W<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>>>>> Incubator mailing list<BR>
>>>>> <a href="Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><BR>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><BR>
>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>>>> Incubator mailing list<BR>
>>>> <a href="Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><BR>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> --<BR>
>>> Cameron Shorter<BR>
>>> Geospatial Solutions Manager<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 href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a><BR>
>>><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Daniel Morissette<BR>
<a href="http://www.mapgears.com/">http://www.mapgears.com/</a><BR>
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Incubator mailing list<BR>
<a href="Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><BR>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>