MS RFC 10: Joining the Open Source Geospatial Foundation

[Frank Warmerdam]

On 2/6/06, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:
> One of the comments that we may get about this proposal is that we (the
> MapServer project, not just the TSC) cannot decide to join until we know
> clearly what the foundation will look like, how it will operate, what
> its bylaws will be, etc. All we have for now is the spirit of the
> general decisions made in Saturday's meeting (which I'm very comfortable
> with personally).
>
> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are two options for
> MapServer:
>
> 1- Be one of the founding projects of the foundation. This means making
> our decision to join solely on the spirit of Saturday's meeting and the
> decisions made so far, which includes the understanding that in big part
> the foundation will be defined from the commonalities between the
> founding projects... kind of reverse-engineering the foundation from the
> projects. There is a bit of risk but this gives MapServer a chance to
> influence the direction that the foundation will take, and in the end
> get a foundation that will better suit its needs. Actually, it's an
> opportunity but also a responsibility since the members of the founding
> projects are expected to work together to help define the foundation.
>
> 2- Wait and see, and decide to join only once everything about the
> foundation is laid out clearly on paper and we know that it's safe to join.
>
> Well, we should not forget option 3:
>
> 3- Never join and continue on our own.

Daniel,

Good point.  I think it is worth clarifying that the
RFC is talking about joining immediately without
clear details on all foundation rules.  However, I do
feel strongly that we should join immediately rather than
try to be part of some "wait and see" group.  Part of the
reason I committed GDAL is that I think a show of faith
from major projects help the foundation launch with
legimacy and helps speed up the whole process.

I think the foundation base is already broad enough
(lots of projects represented and so forth) that there is
little fear of the foundation applying rules that are
terribly intrusive on projects.  A high degree of project
autonomy was a much repeated requirement.

> Another clarification for the RFC: perhaps it should be mentioned
> somewhere that if it joins then MapServer would be expected to move its
> project infrastructure (CVS, website, lists, etc.) to the foundation at
> some point in time.

Good point.  It might be noted in the considerations section
that some of this might happen.   In my mind none of that
is required, though I think some of it is desirable once things
are settled down.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent