[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal to find an alternative to Collabnet

[Gary Lang]

Philosophy aside, I have to repeat what I've said in the past, it took
us no time at all to migrate MapGuide from an internal Perforce server
and Clarify bug tracking database to CN. It was absolutely painless. And
I anticipate that moving to something else in 6 months being similarly
trivial. 

I would advocate new projects come aboard OSGeo. They'll be up in a day
and we'll have more critical mass of activity on the site. We'll all
move together in 6 months.

Otherwise we'll have 10 different sites. If that isn't a sandbox, I
confess I don't know what is. 

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Walsh [mailto:jo at frot.org] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:55 PM
To: discuss at mail.osgeo.org
Cc: akelly at collab.net; brian at hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal to find an alternative to
Collabnet

dear Cameron, all,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 04:49:49AM +1000, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Ethically, I'd prefer to see Open Source projects use Open Source
tools.

Amen, brother! Open Source ideology dictates that application code
wants to be free. Companies create "added value" by providing managed
services built on free software. Clients stick around because the
business relationship improves their lives, not because they're
"locked in". So I've never understood why the CollabNet codebase is
not managed on an open source basis; perhaps it would be more
conducive to client loyalty (given CN's clients are software developers 
with a itch to fix their own problems!) if it were.

> Proposal:
> =========
> 1. I propose that Collabnet as it stands is not acceptable to be the 
> OSGeo Platform.
> 
> 2. As a group we define what we require from a platform.
> This page is a good start:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Project_Infrastructure_Migration

I agree that OSGeo needs a "Plan B" not only for the projects which
are reluctant to migrate, but for those which are already committed,
so that we can perform a real assessment of what value we are getting
from CN / what the cost to us is of renewal, ethical considerations
aside (though those are important and shouldn't be overlooked in a
quantitative assessment!)

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tools_Spec was my attempt to look at
this problem from a different angle. There is the 'checklist of tools' 
approach above, and that is invaluable in terms of not missing any 
pieces that every project needs to run well. There are tools that
individual projects won't want or afford the overhead of, but that a
foundation can provide collectively ("build and smoke" test farms...) 

There are other reasons why CN hasn't  been a good fit for OSGeo,
where we should be providing more for our members and projects:

- There's a great deal of interlinking / mutual dependence / mutual
  redistribution between different projects - this is a byproduct of
  being a 'stack' - where a prospective OSGeo user needs
  Geotools+Geoserver+Mapbuilder, or GDAL+Mapserver+Mapbender, or
  GDAL+OSSIM+osgPlanet, to build a whole application. What we've seen
  of CollabNet's approach keeps projects in neat rigid sandboxes, and
  that's not good for us - there's always been a lot of cross-project
  developer energy and commitment - the foundation *arises* from that
  and the tools should be reflecting it, not trying to engineer it
  into existence (or failing to...)

- There's a wider focus than on software - in educational resources
  and geodata packaging and distribution which are indispensable to
  getting open source geospatial tools into real peoples' hands. CN
  doesn't provide tools for collaborative documentation management, or
  processing / bandwidth for serious data munging and serving - so
  OSGeo is obliged to look elsewhere for tools and hosting to do this.

There's a System Administration Committee which was set up to look
after, on a volunteer basis, the systems that OSGeo is getting free
use of at telascience/SDSU. https://sac.osgeo.org/ The mailing list
here might be a good place to have a focused discussion about
what projects really need, and what visionary / next-gen tools the
foundation could realistically be providing across projects. 

Cameron, one reason you "haven't heard a reasonable solution" is that
it's no-one's direct responsibility to look after this; and not only are
all of us involved in OSGeo volunteering our time, but we're
involved *because* we're *already* volunteering on other open source 
and open data projects ;) Personally i find it much easier to be
reactive (like this ;) ) than proactive (like you :D ). 

The Board has been talking about hiring a full-time Executive Director, 
part of whose responsibility would be to oversee / cat-herd the
process of tools migration / support / 'solutions' what have you. 
But OSGeo needs some sponsorship commitment in order to be able to
make believeable promises to any potential Executive Director about
continuing to be given money on a predictable monthly basis. There is a
Fundraising Committee which is just starting to do its thing now - 
https://fundraising.osgeo.org/ . But of course, not only is everyone
on the fundraising committee volunteering their time, but they're
volunteering because ... and it's much easier to be reactive than ... 
and we keep looping around ;) 

thanks for the rousing,


jo 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org