<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Daniel,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your opinion. I think that this open an interesting
discussion.<br>
<br>
El 10/09/15 a las 16:01, Daniel Morissette escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">Hi
Alvaro,
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your detailed response. I have to admit that what is
happening here with your TSC turning into staff performing day to
day project management is setting a precedent and I'm not sure
what that means for OSGeo's incubation criterias.
<br>
<br>
Can you please provide more details on what you mean by "that part
was reviewed and accepted already"? Do you have links to emails
relating to that? Once a project enters incubation, the next
formal acceptance step is the graduation which is what we are
discussing today. There is no intermediate acceptance step that I
aware of, so I'd like to know why you think part of the checklist
has been accepted already.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes, of course, I can look for those e-mail... although as the
process has been delayed so much time. I don't know if it's
important, but I'll see if I have them...<br>
I remember that before last International gvSIG Conference where a
comment was made precisely about the development issues that were
pending to review. Even that if we did it at that moment it would be
perfect to be announced at the 10th International gvSIG Conference.
At that moment we were very busy with several tasks about gvSIG 2.1
and we told that it wasn't possible, and when we could we would do
it. <br>
If it is necessary I can make archeology in my e-mails. <br>
:-) <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
pre.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">
<br>
My personal reaction would be to ask to have the checklist reflect
today's reality with respect to the TSC and decision making, but I
don't want to cause you to do extra work until we hear from other
Incubation committee members on this question. <br>
</blockquote>
It's not an extra work. It is to summarize the previous e-mail. <br>
Sure I will spend more time completing doubts and opinions that you
are commenting. <br>
:-)<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
pre.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">
<br>
Also, having staff perform the day to day management of the
project through face to face discussion may be more efficient (I
have no doubts), but that doesn't directly meet the "Open decision
making process" expectations that we have put on all other
projects so far, so the Incubation committee will have to decide
on how we deal with that. Do we treat gvSIG as an exception, or
decide that open decision process is no longer a requirement? And
if we remove that requirement then how do we distinguish between a
private company just pushing its source code to the public and a
project managed the way gvSIG is managed?
<br>
</blockquote>
I think I'm going to encourage the discussion... although I don't
know if it's an objective at this mailing list. In any case, I think
it can be interesting to explain the gvSIG point of view.<br>
I think we have different points of view. Professionalism doesn't go
against transparency. In the opposite interpretation... I think we
do a big favour to the proprietary software. <br>
I think there's a misinterpretation about the objective of the
professionalism of an open source software. In a lot of conference
we speak about this precisely. <br>
And our opinion can be summarized in the sentence: “It's good that
people collaborate voluntarily with an open source project, but we
want that people can work from Monday to Friday on open source
software, professionally, and in their free time they do whatever
they want (if they want they can provide to an open source software
voluntarily)”. <br>
Besides this is a typical argument of the FUD: professional teams in
proprietary software, and voluntaries in open source projects. <br>
We think that it's a milestone that gvSIG has got to keep a
professional structure... and I never wouldn't see it as a default.
<br>
<br>
Making decisions every day is logical. We speak about decisions
that, besides, only affect to the core of the project (and in gvSIG
2.x, the core is a minimum fraction of gvSIG). <br>
An example of day-to-day decision, and made today: In gvSIG, until
now, when a shapefile is created by scripting, it has to be declared
if it is 2D, 3D, 2DM, 3DM (M is related with dynamic segmentation).
A change has been decided for gvSIG 2.3, where if nothing is said,
it's 2D. And it's a change at the core. <br>
Does anybody think that an expert committee has to meet to decide
these day-to-day things?<br>
<br>
And in any case, decisions that affect to the future and evolution
of the project are made by all the persons/entities (really the
persons usually work in entities) that are involved in the gvSIG
development. <br>
Decisions are made between all the involved people, not in a
one-sided way. That information is made public. I don't see what's
the difference with the OSGeo guidelines. In fact that way to work,
as I said, is more democratic and transparent than the board meeting
and the publishing of a minutes that anybody reads. <br>
We have worked with two systems, and in our case, now is more <span
id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="en"><span class="hps">efficient.<br>
<br>
</span></span>But summarizing this long answer...I don't see that
this contradicts anything of the specified that a project must
achieve. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">
<br>
The reason for the open decision making process is to make it
easier for new external contributors to join the day to day
management of the project and by the same way increase the project
long term viability by preventing the dependence on staff from a
single organization.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Of course, and because of that any important external contributor -I
would remove “external”-... any important contributor can become
part (and in fact they do it) of the decisions making. <br>
Of course...if anybody add a functionality through a plugin or
script in an exceptional way... I don't include him in this group.
I'm speaking about persons/entities, involved in a more or less
continuous way in the project.<br>
<br>
And... I hope new persons became part of the project day-to-day,
they are welcome. But being sincere, does it happen? I don't think
in it, I don't think that a person dedicates the 100% of his time to
a project voluntarily. He/she can dedicate partial time depending on
their professional needs related to the project. In this case,
depending on the case, and as it has been commented, he/she can
become part of decisions making. <br>
<br>
In any case, the answer to this paragraph is related to the previous
one. Existing of a professional structure (to work daily). And here
I think we can speak about the gvSIG Association, because you are
referring to it as “single organization”. <br>
The professional structure is part of the gvSIG Association, that is
an association of several companies, members and collaborators, and
non-business entities that provide public support to the project.
Entities that provide economically to the association to support
that professional team. And they support because the gvSIG
Association generates a business model around the free geomatics
(not only gvSIG) that becomes a mutual profit. <br>
Association that any entity that want to join to, and achieve the
regulations, can do it. <br>
It's very different to a “single organization”. In fact, it's the
guarantee that the project won't be managed by an only organization,
with the risks that it implies (including the extinction), besides
being a safeguard against the multinationals that try to approach
open source projects with business intentions typical of the
proprietary software. <br>
If we study other open source software projects, including
geomatics, we can see that other projects became a failure precisely
because they only dealt with the technical part, and a
sustainability model wasn't started up in order to guarantee its
continuity. <br>
It will be a long e-mail <br>
:-) <br>
<span id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br>
</span></span><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">For
instance, several years ago I was the mentor for the MapGuide and
later on the FDO projects and we worked hard with them to move the
decision making from face to face discussions inside Autodesk
offices to the respective project mailing lists in order to open
up to the community.
<br>
</blockquote>
I don't know the Mapguide model. And with humility, I think it's a
project with low impact. <span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span
class="hps">And speaking</span> <span class="hps">of</span> <span
class="hps">impact</span> <span class="hps">as</span> <span
class="hps">implementation of</span> <span class="hps">a
business model</span> <span class="hps">that allows</span> <span
class="hps">to offer an alternative</span> <span class="hps">to
the multinationals.</span></span><br>
I think we have to reflect on this kind of things in OSGeo, if we
really want to be an alternative to the proprietary software... in a
professional level too. <br>
Although that's true, it's not very related to the incubation. <br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
pre.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
Sorry for the long email. I'd like to hear what other IncCom
members think.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Ha, ha. No, quite the opposite. And I think my answer is longer <br>
:-) <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Alvaro<br>
<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
pre.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
-->
</style>
<blockquote cite="mid:55F18D42.6000606@mapgears.com" type="cite">Daniel
<br>
<br>
On 2015-09-10 6:20 AM, Alvaro Anguix wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Daniel,
<br>
<br>
El 10/09/15 a las 04:12, Daniel Morissette escribió:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear All,
<br>
<br>
I started looking into the gvSIG incubation checklist at
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist</a> and am
having a
<br>
hard time tracking down info about the Technical Steering
Committee.
<br>
<br>
The checklist points to
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Technical_Steering_Committee">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Technical_Steering_Committee</a>
which in
<br>
turn points to two broken links for the
<br>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion">https://gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion</a> gvSIG TSC
front
<br>
page] and
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.forge.osor.eu/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub">https://lists.forge.osor.eu/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub</a>
<br>
public mailing list]
<br>
<br>
Can you please review the Incubation Checklist page (and the
pages
<br>
that it links to) and make sure all links are working? I'd
like to see
<br>
archives of the TSC mailing list showing that decisions are
indeed
<br>
made in an open manner and in collaboration with the community
on a
<br>
public list and I cannot find that at the moment. I managed to
find an
<br>
old TSC archive at
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub">http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub</a>
but
<br>
the most recent posts date from 2013.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you for the feedback!.
<br>
You are completely right. In its day, that part was reviewed and
<br>
accepted already, so we complete the reviewing tasks that were
pending.
<br>
And right, there has been enough time to evolve the management
of that
<br>
part.
<br>
<br>
Such was the case that we didn't pay attention to these links,
and with
<br>
the new gvSIG website
(<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.gvsig.org/"><http://www.gvsig.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.gvsig.org">www.gvsig.org</a>), to consult
<br>
the contents of the old website, the text “docs” has to be added
to the
<br>
URL. For example, the link
<br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion"><https://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion">https://gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion</a>)would
<br>
be:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion"><http://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion">http://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion</a>
<br>
<br>
With the advance of the project we have been correcting issues
that we
<br>
think they make us to be more efficient. Efficient in the
meaning of
<br>
eliminating the bureaucratic parts and speed up the decision
making. It
<br>
has also been possible, in a big part, thank to the professional
<br>
structure of the project who works daily for the project. It can
be
<br>
different to other projects. It makes that the day-to-day
decisions can
<br>
be made by people of the professional structure (there's an
architecture
<br>
and development manager, and a product manager). The efficacy
has been
<br>
notable, and having a meeting every week to make small decisions
didn't
<br>
make as much as sense. It is thank to the professional structure
that
<br>
can dedicate all the time to gvSIG.
<br>
<br>
And the TSC, that is composed of the main developers that are
working on
<br>
gvSIG, has a meeting after every final version in order to make
<br>
decisions for the next version. Currently it is planned to
release 2
<br>
versions per year (one version in May and another one in
December),
<br>
although this year it has been an exception because we will
release
<br>
three versions (gvSIG 2.3 will be released in December). At that
meeting
<br>
it is decided what to work on for the next version. For example,
for
<br>
gvSIG 2.3, the next version, it's panned to make the effort to
have a
<br>
first distribution for MAC OS X and Windows 64 bits. It involves
to
<br>
change libraries for raster accessing and projections mainly...
and we
<br>
are working on it now.
<br>
<br>
And instead of having proceedings, we preferred to advance one
more step
<br>
and publish the decisions publicly, because the proceedings are
not read
<br>
by a lot of people. Concretely in our blog. At this way,
following the
<br>
example of gvSIG 2.3, we announced that decision (this is the
link in
<br>
English but it was published in Spanish too):
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://blog.gvsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/"><http://blog.gvsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.gvsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/">http://blog.gvsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/</a>
<br>
<br>
Of course it doesn't mean that gvSIG includes only these
changes. We
<br>
have to include all the possible functionalities developed by
the
<br>
community that are integrated with that version (but it's out of
the
<br>
initial planning and the gvSIG scope of decision).
<br>
<br>
And there's also some decisions about some objectives at these
meetings
<br>
that are not carried out at the next version. It is listed at
the gvSIG
<br>
redmine, at the “whislist” option -the access to this list is
also public-:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%3F&set_filter=1&f[]=status_id&op[status_id]=o&f[]=tracker_id&op[tracker_id]=%3D&v[tracker_id][]=11&f[]=&c[]=tracker&c[]=status&c[]=priority&c[]=subject&c[]=assigned_to&c[]=updated_on&group_by"><https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%3F&set_filter=1&f[]=status_id&op[status_id]=o&f[]=tracker_id&op[tracker_id]=%3D&v[tracker_id][]=11&f[]=&c[]=tracker&c[]=status&c[]=priority&c[]=subject&c[]=assigned_to&c[]=updated_on&group_by></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f">https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f</a>[]=status_id&op[status_id]=o&f[]=tracker_id&op[track
e
r_id]=%3D&v[tracker_id][]=11&f[]=&c[]=tracker&c[]=status&c[]=priority&c[]=subject&c[]=assigned_to&c[]=updated_on&group_by=
<br>
<br>
*In summary:*
<br>
<br>
We can correct these links, adding “docs”, but it wouldn't make
much
<br>
sense because now we work in another way, although it was
reviewed then.
<br>
It's another way that I think it is more open and agile.
<br>
<br>
We would be able to summarize the information of this e-mail and
add it
<br>
to the checklist.
<br>
<br>
<br>
And thank you again for reviewing our job!
<br>
<br>
Alvaro Anguix
<br>
<br>
gvSIG Association
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Thanks
<br>
<br>
Daniel
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-08-11 1:07 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">General call out to the committee to
help review on this one :)
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Jody Garnett
<br>
<br>
On 28 July 2015 at 04:27, Dimitris Kotzinos
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kotzino@gmail.com">kotzino@gmail.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kotzino@gmail.com"><mailto:kotzino@gmail.com></a>> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Dear all,
<br>
<br>
I am happy today to report to the list that the gvSIG
project has
<br>
fulfilled in my view all the criteria put forward by the
OSGeo
<br>
Incubation Committee and as the project mentor I support
the
<br>
project's
<br>
request for graduation.
<br>
gvSIG is one of the healthiest and very active projects
around,
<br>
with a
<br>
solid developer and user base. It has been around for a
long time
<br>
and
<br>
has done excellent things, the latest being an award at
the NASA
<br>
World
<br>
Wind contest received in FOSS4G-Europe in Como, Italy
this month.
<br>
<br>
I had the chance to meet with the gvSIG people at
FOSS4G-E in
<br>
Como and
<br>
we finalized the checklist for the project graduation.
You can
<br>
find the
<br>
checklist here:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist</a>
<br>
<br>
The people around gvSIG have responded greatly to all
the requests I
<br>
made as a mentor, they have gone even beyond that in
many occasions,
<br>
e.g. by providing live statistics on their developers'
activity.
<br>
They have gone through a code provenance review, they
have user and
<br>
developer lists in many languages and they have in place
governance
<br>
practices that abide with what I would consider proper
governance of
<br>
open source projects.
<br>
<br>
I would like to ask the list to take the time and have a
look to the
<br>
checklist mentioned above and if anything is found out
of the order
<br>
please let me and Manuel Madrid <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mmadrid@gvsig.com">mmadrid@gvsig.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mmadrid@gvsig.com"><mailto:mmadrid@gvsig.com></a>> know.
<br>
I would also like to ask Jody to initiate the proper
time period for
<br>
comments and declare the time for voting when the time
comes.
<br>
<br>
Finally I would like to thank Manuel and Alvaro from the
gvSIG
<br>
Association for their excellent collaboration and to
publicly
<br>
apologize
<br>
to them that sometimes the work load prohibited me to be
as
<br>
available
<br>
and responsive as I would like.
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your attention,
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
<br>
Dimitris
<br>
<br>
P.S.1: Although the project has made a great effort to
provide
<br>
English
<br>
documentation for ... everything, some things might be
found in
<br>
Spanish
<br>
(their language of origin), as well as some of the most
active
<br>
lists are
<br>
the Spanish ones. I respected that and I let the project
take its
<br>
time
<br>
and decide by itself on what to translate and what not.
<br>
But I would like to say kudos on their efforts to
provide
<br>
everything in
<br>
at least both Spanish and English.
<br>
<br>
P.S.2: Since during the process we had to switch from
the checklist
<br>
v.1.0 to v.2.0 of graduation requirements I was
wondering what is
<br>
the
<br>
proper way to introduce comments and requests for
changes for this.
<br>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Dimitris Kotzinos
<br>
Professor
<br>
Head MIDI team
<br>
Lab. ETIS (ENSEA/UCP/CNRS UMR 8051)
<br>
& Dept. Sciences Informatiques, Université de
Cergy-Pontoise
<br>
2 av. Adolphe Chauvin
<br>
Site Saint Martin, bureau A561
<br>
95000 Pontoise
<br>
France
<br>
phone: +33 13425 2855
<br>
e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Dimitrios.Kotzinos@u-cergy.fr">Dimitrios.Kotzinos@u-cergy.fr</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Dimitrios.Kotzinos@u-cergy.fr"><mailto:Dimitrios.Kotzinos@u-cergy.fr></a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Incubator mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org"><mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Incubator mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Incubator mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>