<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:28, Tim Schaub <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey-<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Erik Uzureau wrote:<br>
> First off, let me reiterate that I'm not in any way against OL PSC<br>
> taking on this<br>
> role, nor do I have any doubt of anyone's ability to deal with these<br>
> responsibilities.<br>
><br>
> My objection is purely theoretical (and perhaps incredibly ill-worded,<br>
> sorry :-)<br>
><br>
> What I'm trying to get at is the sense of "responsibility" in this whole<br>
> process.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps I am leaping from the wrong foot, but my assumption here is<br>
> that, on the one hand, the idea of assigning "governance" to the OL PSC<br>
> is that it's a way of having a group of people who've already been<br>
> there, done that look after and help out the new guy... but on the other<br>
> hand, it's also a way for OSGEO to delegate the responsibility for<br>
> making sure that the new guy follows all the rules. Yes?<br>
><br>
> It's the second case that to me seems like it's in jeopardy when the new<br>
> guys happen to also be the governors. It's like allowing employees to<br>
> sign off on their own expense reports.... it's essentially saying "we<br>
> have complete trust in him/her".... and if that's the case, then what's<br>
> the use of siging off at all?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>You could also say that the "new guys" are not really new. They are the<br>
same ones that OSGeo (essentially) entrusts with the governance of<br>
OpenLayers.<br>
<br>
The reason to involve the OpenLayers PSC is that OpenLayers has gone<br>
through incubation. The project and the processes adopted by the PSC<br>
have been vetted by OSGeo. GeoExt is unknown to OSGeo.</blockquote><div><br>I must really be misunderstanding or not doing a good job of expressing what <br>I'm trying to say here, because I don't see how this response address anything<br>
that I've been trying to say this whole thread. <br><br>I understand that OL's project and process have been vetted and that GeoExt's<br>project and process have not. <br><br>What I don't understand is what in the world an OL vote is going to signify other <br>
than "we think the GeoExt guys know what they are doing and will follow the rules."<br><br>..which to me is a vote of confidence, not a contract of governance. The latter <br>being the agreement to a relationship in which one group takes on responsibility<br>
for monitoring another (which we're agreed is not the case since the monitors <br>and the monitorees are the same people)<br><br>Anyways, I'm sure there's only good intentions here so no need to argue. I am, <br>
however, very curious to see the final wording of this vote... :-)<br><br><br><br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Tim<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
> If GeoExt gets a really great contribution but can't get a CLA for it --<br>
> for whatever reason -- then what is to stop their "governors" on the OL<br>
> PSC from glossing over that detail and allowing the patch to go in<br>
> anyways? Why require governers at all? Maybe we add a clause that says<br>
> "Any project led by PSC members of an official OSGEO project are exempt<br>
> from enlisting another project for governance." Maybe that is<br>
> essentially what everyone wants?<br>
><br>
> Again, please don't interpret this as a character assault on any of the<br>
> proposed double-PSC members. I personally trust all of you and have<br>
> doubt that you would "do the right thing" in this situation.... which is<br>
> to say you would unquestionably have my vote on this measure. I'm just<br>
> surprised that OSGEO policy would allow this sort of thing.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 00:47, Tim Schaub <<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hey-<br>
><br>
> Erik Uzureau wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:33, Tim Schaub wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hey-<br>
> ><br>
> > Erik Uzureau wrote:<br>
> > > So from this mail and reading the two links... it sounds<br>
> like the<br>
> > impact<br>
> > > for OL PSC<br>
> > > would be that we must make sure that:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1) GeoExt has a OSGeo-friendly license (and doesn't change it)<br>
> > > 2) All contributors to GeoExt project have signed CLA<br>
> > > 3) GeoExt remains Geo-related.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Seems like (1) and (3) are essentially a one-time deal.<br>
> (2), however,<br>
> > > would imply someone from OL PSC monitoring all GeoExt commits<br>
> > > and double-checking to see that CLAs are on file for the<br>
> committer<br>
> > > or in the event that the committer is merely acting as a<br>
> reviewer,<br>
> > > then for the originator of the patch.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks for the response Erik. I think you've described the<br>
> practical<br>
> > implications well.<br>
> ><br>
> > > None of this seems particularly difficult or time consuming.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > My immediate question, though, is "can a member of the OL PSC<br>
> > > act in any of these roles if they are also a member of the<br>
> GeoExt<br>
> > > PSC (or general community)?"<br>
> ><br>
> > Sure. This is what I was imagining.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Really? I'd maybe put that one to the good people at OSGEO before<br>
> > declaring a victory. I don't wanna be a sourpuss, but to me this has<br>
> > hints of some sort of wierd rotary-clubesque golden parachuting.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Yes, really.<br>
><br>
> > I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but even barring the above<br>
> > conflict-of-interest issue, there just doesn't seem to be any sense<br>
> > of *real* responsibility happenning at any stage of this game, does<br>
> > there?<br>
><br>
> I'm curious what sort of conflict of interest you see. Eric Lemoine and<br>
> I serve on project steering committees for both OpenLayers and GeoExt.<br>
> My interests in both capacities are very much aligned. My<br>
> responsibilities on the OL PSC are to make sure that project continues<br>
> to flourish and that it continues to meet the criteria of an OSGeo<br>
> member project. As a member of the GeoExt PSC, I am interested in<br>
> seeing that project grow into a candidate for OSGeo membership. I<br>
> imagine the same is true for Eric.<br>
><br>
> The idea for proposing that the OpenLayers PSC assist in the governance<br>
> of GeoExt was suggested by Frank Warmerdam (copied here) when we asked<br>
> for advice on assigning copyright for the GeoExt codebase to OSGeo.<br>
><br>
> I am comfortable assuming the responsibilities of a PSC member for both<br>
> projects. Does anyone else see a conflict here? To me it seems like a<br>
> very sensible way for the OpenLayers PSC to be able to accept the role<br>
> of assisting in GeoExt governance. (If the OpenLayers PSC had no<br>
> relation to the GeoExt PSC, I imagine it would be harder to accept this<br>
> responsibility.)<br>
><br>
> Tim<br>
><br>
> Start of thread:<br>
> <a href="http://n2.nabble.com/proposal-for-GeoExt-governance-td2477185.html" target="_blank">http://n2.nabble.com/proposal-for-GeoExt-governance-td2477185.html</a><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Erik<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Governance in this case is largely about asking for evidence that<br>
> > guidelines are being met.<br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > If the answer is "yes", and either Tim or Eric (who I know<br>
> are both<br>
> > > involved in GeoExt) would like to take on the<br>
> responsibilities, then<br>
> > > I don't see any reason for the OL PSC *not* to approve this.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If the answer is "no", then a suitable chaperone among the<br>
> uninvolved<br>
> > > on the OL PSC will have to step up.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Are there any side effects to this that are not being listed<br>
> > here? I mean,<br>
> > > whether the answer to my above question is "yes" or "no", it<br>
> > doesn't seem<br>
> > > like OL PSC really has anything to *lose* either way....<br>
> maybe I'm<br>
> > > missing something?<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I don't think there are implications that you are missing.<br>
> If there is<br>
> > no more discussion, I'll ask for a vote tomorrow.<br>
> ><br>
> > Tim<br>
> ><br>
> > > Erik<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 23:54, Tim Schaub<br>
> <<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>>><br>
> > > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tschaub@opengeo.org">tschaub@opengeo.org</a>>>>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hey-<br>
> > ><br>
> > > GeoExt is a project that aims to provide an Ext based<br>
> toolkit for<br>
> > > developing applications with OpenLayers. The library will<br>
> > extend Ext<br>
> > > widgets and data management classes with mapping<br>
> > functionality from<br>
> > > OpenLayers.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The GeoExt project steering committee and existing<br>
> users and<br>
> > developers<br>
> > > are interested in assigning copyright for the GeoExt code<br>
> > base to the<br>
> > > OSGeo foundation. For OSGeo to accept copyright, it<br>
> would be<br>
> > ideal if<br>
> > > an existing OSGeo project could participate in the<br>
> governance<br>
> > of the<br>
> > > GeoExt project.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Our hope (as the GeoExt PSC) is that the OpenLayers<br>
> PSC would<br>
> > accept<br>
> > > this responsibility. Exactly what "participate in the<br>
> > governance" means<br>
> > > is a little hard to nail down. I've put together a<br>
> proposal<br>
> > with a bit<br>
> > > more specific language:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > <a href="http://www.geoext.org/trac/geoext/wiki/governance" target="_blank">http://www.geoext.org/trac/geoext/wiki/governance</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > I'd like to open discussion on this proposal and get a<br>
> vote<br>
> > from the<br>
> > > OpenLayers PSC some time next week.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > What this means for the OpenLayers PSC:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The OpenLayers PSC requires that the GeoExt PSC provides<br>
> > evidence that<br>
> > > GeoExt is following the criteria for becoming an OSGeo<br>
> member<br>
> > project<br>
> > > (as far as I can tell, this is best described here<br>
> > > <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs#Criteria" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs#Criteria</a>).<br>
> > ><br>
> > > In practice, this will mean that the OpenLayers PSC will<br>
> > request that<br>
> > > the GeoExt PSC provide information on contributors and<br>
> signed<br>
> > > contributor license agreements, and that the GeoExt PSC<br>
> > maintains the<br>
> > > "geospatial" nature of the project.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Questions and feedback welcome.<br>
> > > Tim<br>
> > ><br>
> > > --<br>
> > > Tim Schaub<br>
> > > OpenGeo - <a href="http://opengeo.org" target="_blank">http://opengeo.org</a><br>
> > > Expert service straight from the developers.<br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > Dev mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>>>><br>
> > > <a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Tim Schaub<br>
> > OpenGeo - <a href="http://opengeo.org" target="_blank">http://opengeo.org</a><br>
> > Expert service straight from the developers.<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>>><br>
> > <a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Tim Schaub<br>
> OpenGeo - <a href="http://opengeo.org" target="_blank">http://opengeo.org</a><br>
> Expert service straight from the developers.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a>><br>
> <a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Tim Schaub<br>
OpenGeo - <a href="http://opengeo.org" target="_blank">http://opengeo.org</a><br>
Expert service straight from the developers.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dev@openlayers.org">Dev@openlayers.org</a><br>
<a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>