<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div>+1</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Francesco </div>
</div>
<div name="messageReplySection">Il 11 ago 2026, 13:02 +0200, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis@gmail.com>, ha scritto:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Hi all: updated sequence with update to RFC6:<br />
<br />
- amend RFC6 to be only for plugin context (noting that we reset the voting)<br />
- approve/merge RFC7 and its associated PR<br />
- open a PR to only remove pydantic (does not need an RFC)<br />
- update RFC6 PR accordingly<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
..Tom<br />
<br />
On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:45 AM Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis@gmail.com> wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-color: grey; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left: 10px;"><br />
Hi Francesco: thanks for the info. I would have preferred that RFC6<br />
focused only on the plugin context discussion. I would suggest the<br />
following then in sequence:<br />
<br />
- declare RFC6 closed/not planned<br />
- approve/merge RFC7 and its associated PR<br />
- open a PR to only remove pydantic (does not need an RFC)<br />
- open RFC8 and associated PR to propose a plugin context<br />
<br />
Does this make sense? I think this is the most sensible path forward<br />
to ensure stability.<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
..Tom<br />
<br />
On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:27 AM Francesco Bartoli <xbartolone@gmail.com> wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-color: grey; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left: 10px;">><br />
> Hi Tom,<br />
><br />
> before moving forward with this can we clarify how you would like to coordinate with RFC 6 which had already got three +1 with no other comments and has somehow some overlaps with the data validation design?<br />
><br />
> If I remember well what we discussed in one of our last meetings the plan was:<br />
> 1. Keep RFC6’s description only for the introduction of a plugin context without any relation with pydantic’s removal and moving forward with the approval with the missing two votes<br />
> 2. split PR https://github.com/geopython/pygeoapi/pull/2307 into two and move the plugin context implementation to a new PR that would close RFC 6<br />
><br />
> Regarding the RFC7 implementation I will leave some comments directly in the PR.<br />
><br />
> Thanks,<br />
> Francesco<br />
> On 10 Aug 2026 at 14:53 +0200, Jorge S. Mendes de Jesus via pygeoapi <pygeoapi@lists.osgeo.org>, wrote:<br />
><br />
> +1<br />
><br />
> On 8/10/26 12:20 PM, Just van den Broecke via pygeoapi wrote:<br />
><br />
> +1<br />
><br />
> On 07/08/2026 13:20, Tom Kralidis via pygeoapi wrote:<br />
><br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-color: grey; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left: 10px;">> > Hi all: FYI per subject, putting RFC7 [1] to PSC vote.<br />
> ><br />
> > I will start with my +1.<br />
> ><br />
> > Thanks<br />
> ><br />
> > ..Tom<br />
> ><br />
> > [1] https://pygeoapi.io/development/rfc/7<br />
> > _______________________________________________<br />
> > pygeoapi mailing list<br />
> > pygeoapi@lists.osgeo.org<br />
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi<br /></blockquote>
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> pygeoapi mailing list<br />
> pygeoapi@lists.osgeo.org<br />
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi<br />
><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> pygeoapi mailing list<br />
> pygeoapi@lists.osgeo.org<br />
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi<br /></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>