[Board] [OSGeo-Standards] [Incubator] Fwd: TEAM Engine and CITE infrastructure

Thu May 15 14:55:27 PDT 2014

Hi Luis and Joshua,
The OSGeo Board discussed this thread, and basically agreed with the 
points as put forward by Daniel, which was summarised and passed in the 
following motion:

Motion re CITE: [The OSGeo Board should] state to the OGC:
"OSGeo always welcomes the opportunity to work with OGC. With regards to 
the CITE project, we are not geared to provide the level of service that 
would be required for CITE, unless OGC were to contribute in a 
sustaining manner toward the service. If OGC wish to move forward in 
this regard, we can discuss details. OGC are welcome to consider other 
options outside of OSGeo and continue with OSGeo incubation if they wish 
to do so."

On 13/05/2014 8:34 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> +1
>
> Bruce
>
> ________________________________________
> From: standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jody Garnett [jody.garnett at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 12 May 2014 11:38 PM
> To: Joshua Lieberman
> Cc: standards at lists.osgeo.org; Daniel Morissette
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] [Incubator] Fwd: TEAM Engine and CITE infrastructure [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Joshua et al.
>
> I am not sure what to make of the Cite TEAM engine, while the project has entered incubation is has now shown any progress towards incubation goals.  Does the project have the resources to take part in incubation, or should we invite the project to withdraw?
>
> I also note that the OSGeo incubation process may be difficult for Cite TEAM engine to complete as it requires demonstration of a health community (an example would be collaboration between developers and users around a release).
>
> You may wish to review the incubation checklist http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
> --
> Jody
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Joshua Lieberman <josh at oklieb.net<mailto:josh at oklieb.net>> wrote:
> One of the issues may be that software to test standards compliance seems like it would be of narrow interest and hard to build a developer community around. Really, though, it is part of a wider category of tools for software functional testing, which should be of interest to any software developer or organization. There certainly seems to be plenty of community support for Selenium, for example.
>
> That leads to the questions of whether TEAM engine can be used for broader functional testing or whether more general tools such as Selenium can be used instead for standards compliance testing. Either approach should increase the odds that a developer community exists or could be formed to support the software's maintenance and improvement.
>
> Josh Lieberman
> josh*at*oklieb*dot*net
>
> On May 9, 2014, at 9:48, Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com<mailto:dmorissette at mapgears.com>> wrote:
>
> Replying to myself.
>
> I re-read the original email from Luis, and see that he writes "which organizations can provide support for issue tracking, releases, code review etc." ... so it sounds like what they are looking for is not just hosting infrastructure (contrary to what I initially thought after a quick read of this thread), they seem to be looking for a sweet home for CITE as an open source project, in which case OSGeo or LocationTech Incubation are the places to start.
>
> OSGeo/LocationTech incubation is a good place to start but that won't do it all, the foundations would just provide a home for the community and some assistance to help it get organized, but won't replace the need for a healthy community of users and developers around the project to do the actual work and keep the project alive. More specifically OSGeo or LocationTech should not be expected to provide resources/staff to maintain the CITE software itself, they are non profit entities and cannot pay staff directly to maintain software anyway. My opinion is that it would still be up to OGC to fund the maintenance of the CITE software, produce releases, etc.
>
> Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should be doing, so treat this email as what it is: just a personal opinion from a past member of OGC and current member of both OSGeo and LocationTech,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 14-05-09 9:23 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Hopefully I misunderstood the request, but if OGC is really seeking a
> group to help *host* their CITE test suite, i.e. the place where
> software vendors run their tests when they seek certification, then I
> think this is wrong. I don't think OSGeo, LocationTech, or any entity
> other than OGC itself should be hosting the test suite that serves for
> certification. What would people think if some proprietary software
> vendors were hosting the test suite? Probably not good, right? Then why
> should it be different for OSGeo or LocationTech.
>
> As I wrote above, I probably misunderstood the request, and if all OGC
> is looking for is a home for the CITE source code to grow and prosper,
> then OSGeo and LocationTech are the best places, but this is different
> from just hosting.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 14-05-09 7:20 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> While I'm very supportive of CITE testing, and would love to see the
> CITE project pass through OSGeo incubation, I don't see OSGeo as geared
> to provide the hosting support that OGC is asking for.
> In particular, hosting infrastructure requires both hardware, but more
> importantly, people to maintain the infrastructure. If the CITE project
> is not able to attract volunteers, I would not expect OSGeo to be able
> to attract them either.
>
> I refer back to our OSGeo Priorities:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors#Support_initiatives_which_support_themselves
>
>
>
>
> On 9/05/2014 8:02 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> At the Washington TC, Luis announced that OGC are setting up an
> arrangement with from memory, the Eclipse Foundation, to help move
> this software forward.
>
> There was no real rationale provided on this that I recall.
>
> I also did not get a chance to follow up with Luis as to what this
> meant for the OSGeo Incubation process that the products are going
> through.
>
> Perhaps Luis or Carl could comment.
>
> Can anyone advise what is happening with CITE from the OSGeo
> Incubation viewpoint?
>
> Is there an active project?
>
> What organisations are supporting the Project?
>
> What is the status of CITE incubation?
>
> Bruce
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>
> [standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff McKenna
> [jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com<mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2014 10:46 PM
> To: standards at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: [OSGeo-Standards] Fwd: TEAM Engine and CITE infrastructure
>
> Hello OSGeo standards community,
>
> I received a request (below) from Luis Bermudez, head of the OGC
> compliance group, wondering if OSGeo might be able to help hosting their
> CITE architecture.  Note that he sent this to me a day after the
> deadline listed on the call, so I don't think we should pay much
> attention to that date.  What are the thoughts on helping them?
>
> I will also mention this at next week's OSGeo board meeting.
>
> -jeff
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: TEAM Engine and CITE infrastructure
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:45:36 -0400
> From: Luis Bermudez <lbermudez at opengeospatial.org<mailto:lbermudez at opengeospatial.org>>
> To: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com<mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> We have had lots of discussion about moving the OGC CITE software
> infrastructure  to a different place.  We were advise after the last TC
> to do a press release to see which organizations can provide support for
> issue tracking, releases, code review etc. We recently published this
> press release
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/pressreleases/1998
>
> Maybe OSGeo is interested? I didn't heard from anybody from OSGeo.
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
>
>
> - Luis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Luis Bermudez, Ph.D.
> Director Compliance Program
> Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
> The OGC: Making Location Count
>
> Skype: bermudez_luis
> Twitter: @berdez
> Tel: +1 301 760 7323<tel:%2B1%20301%20760%207323>
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/organization/staff/lbermudez
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201<tel:%2B1%20418-696-5056%20%23201>
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Standards at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099