[OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo

Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 06:46:42 PDT 2014

Not only is that a great idea Jachym - it is already happening.

MarbleGIS works with kde.org and had an easier go of OSGeo incubation as a
result. KDE is very strict about headers - so they were in good shape. KDE
had some  policies to follow, so many of our questions about how the
project was run were easy to answer with a hyperlink.

So Marble GIS was able to use their experience with one fountain to have an
head start at OSGeo Incubation.

Jody Garnett

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>

> What about speeding OSGeo incubation in a way, that projects, who made it
> through locationtech, would have to work only at the differences between
> both incubations, afaik the community aspect and maybe something else, in
> order to make it to OSGeo project? It would be more easy for them to make
> it through OSGeo incubation, things would be speeding up a bit
> I'm I completely wrong?
> Jachym
> Send from cellphone
> --
> Jachym Cepicky
> e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
> URL: http://les-ejk.cz
> GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp
> Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org
> On Sep 15, 2014 7:55 AM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good questions/discussion:
>> Going to chime in as I enjoy both working with OSGeo incubation and
>> LocationTech. I am a couple timezones west of Daniel but sleep is on the
>> horizon.
>> TLDR: I am not 100% positive of either organisation, which is why I am
>> trying to make them better.
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata <
>> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:
>>> As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software
>>> affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us.
>> Agreed, and I was very heartened by aspects of foss4g this year.
>>> Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do
>>> differently with respect to osgeo?
>> A lot of questions :) The two organisations share the same goals, but
>> have different talents with respect to outreach.
>> I am going to try and do a single Pro/Con for each organisation just so
>> you can see how they differ. I suspect this is a better conversation over
>> beer or coffee since I cannot tell what kind of differences you are
>> interested in?
>> OSGeo Incubation
>> Pro: OSGeo incubation has the advantage of being less formal, and thus
>> able to adapt to the needs of the projects in incubation today. This
>> message gets lots repeatedly, which makes me a bit sad. I usually pick on
>> my own projects, but perhaps the pycsw crew would not mind being used as an
>> example. We have an "checklist" item about user / developer interaction,
>> with an example provided of user list collaboration around releases. This
>> example is dated and does not fit with an amazing aspect of the pycsw story
>> - pycsw have great downstream projects fulfilling this role (risk
>> mitigation around release based on bug reports, testing, collaboration).
>> OSGeo incubation has the flexibility to recognise this value ... and get on
>> with life.
>> Con: OSGeo incubation has a look but don't touch attitude - we like to
>> leave projects as we found them and not disturb the way each projects is
>> already functioning. This is great "low impact" approach for when we were
>> taking on fully-fored projects like MapServer, MapGuide and PostGIS. What
>> could possibly be the drawback? We are not in position to offer much
>> guidance to organisations that are new to open source struggling to know
>> where to start.
>> Contrast: We are great at reviewing project viability to try and protect
>> OSGeo users from adopting projects that have gone stale.
>> LocationTech Incubation
>> Pro: LocationTech is a working group in an already established Software
>> Foundation. They have a long history of teaching new projects how to do
>> OpenSource. Many of the conventions we work with in our open source
>> projects (voting +1 to accept a new committer on a project) have been
>> automated into a developer portal. This structure can help those new to
>> open source feel confidence they are doing it right.
>> Cons: The workload associated with checking License/Headers is both
>> harder and easier then OSGeo. There are staff to do the checking, but you
>> need to submit each thing you depend on - even down to the build tools used
>> to compile, build diagrams or generate docs. While I can kind of respect
>> this (protecting potential developers from needing to purchase tools) was
>> not prepared for the workload.
>> Contrast: Eclipse incubation does not say much about if a project is
>> stale.
>> does it somehow overlap with incubation or not? What are the distinctive
>>> features?
>> There is an overlap, but differences:
>> * A project graduating out of OSGeo ...would have to do a formal IP check
>> to graduate out of LocationTech. There is paid staff to do the work, but it
>> is still a lot of work to submit all the code. I think there is like a TM
>> check and other stuff. Lots of work, with some assistance on offer.
>> * A project graduating out of LocationTech ... would have to do
>> organisation viability, documentation checks, user/developer collaboration
>> and similar. Soft concerns but hard to do.
>> They also have a similar issue: projects are (quite rightly) more focused
>> on the next release and any publicity .. then actually completing
>> incubation.
>>> Personally I wonder why some of the most eminent person of osgeo (like
>>> you) decided to work into location teach? Don't misunderstood me, I'm not
>>> judging nor criticizing,  I'd just like to understand opportunities or
>>> aspect or services not found in osgeo and that experts and leaders found
>>> there.
>> When the talks go up, skip to the end of the LocationTech projects you
>> can see leads from several projects answer your question.
>> For me personally the motivation is the same: foster new projects as the
>> best way of fulfilling our OSGeo mandate / LocationTech charter.
>> For me as uDig project lead:
>> a) The uDig project always wanted to join Eclipse: since it is built with
>> Eclipse "Rich Client Platform (RCP)" the best way to attract new RCP
>> developers is to take uDig closer to where the developers are.
>> b) Is in need of a new home as Refractions does not appear active
>>> Sorry in advance for my eventual  ignorance, but I think this would help
>>> people better understand the discussion and the future of osgeo.
>> Thanks for the questions Maxi. If you want a front row seat you could
>> always talk to the OSGeo Board about being the Guest on the LocationTech
>> meetings. This position was created help with communication, and I guess
>> this email thread indicates a need.
>> The nice thing is that all these software organisations are here to help
>> (OSGeo, Eclipse Foundation, Apache Foundation, Free Software Foundation,
>> Linux Foundation). This ability to play well with others is something I
>> respect about OSGeo. We are not worried about our projects being hosted on
>> GitHub, or Marble GIS working with KDE Foundation.
>> --
>> Jody
>> PS. I wrote a blog post
>> <http://www.lisasoft.com/blog/programming-public-osgeo-and-locationtech> of
>> some of my culture shock when first starting with LocationTech. I have
>> learned a bit since then so take that link with a grain of salt.
>> PPS. I volunteered to help with foss4g-na, no idea what I am in for, but
>> if you have any ideas/suggestions please send them to me.
>>> Maxi
>>> Il 14-set-2014 17:05 "Daniel Morissette" <dmorissette at mapgears.com> ha
>>> scritto:
>>> FWIW I'm happy to hear that there was such a face to face discussion. I
>>>> believe that open communication on the issues will be the best way to
>>>> address the fears and find ways to move forward in the best interest of the
>>>> overall worldwide community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who
>>>> have a common interest in seeing free and open source geospatial software
>>>> strive.
>>>> Keep in mind that we all come to this model of software development for
>>>> different reasons (business, academic, philosophical, hobby, etc.), but in
>>>> the end we're all working towards a similar objective, so there is no fear
>>>> to be had, just different means of reaching a common objective, and since
>>>> the result of everybody's actions is better free/open source software,
>>>> everybody will benefit in the end.
>>>> Not sure if I was able to relay my thoughts properly... maybe I need a
>>>> bit more sleep.
>>>> Cheers all
>>>> Daniel
>>>> On 14-09-14 10:25 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>> as long as I understand it: "some members of the community" are scared
>>>>> of LocationTech "taking over" whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo
>>>>> projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on
>>>>> either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal
>>>>> dislikes.
>>>>> Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with
>>>>> Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally
>>>>> believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to "crush" OSGeo
>>>>> or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would
>>>>> like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference,
>>>>> regarding (again) "some remarks" of "some members of the community"
>>>>> (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not
>>>>> necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress.
>>>>> I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides,
>>>>> still calm and productive.
>>>>> "To contribute" of course means "to work" and LocationTech is anything
>>>>> but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA
>>>>> next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl
>>>>> be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly.
>>>>> This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation
>>>>> between LocationTech and OSGeo.
>>>>> Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that
>>>>> good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other
>>>>> things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and
>>>>> weaken our weaknesses should have "non-zero-sum" effect.
>>>>> We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us
>>>>> LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global
>>>>> level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall
>>>>> try to find solution for the next time.
>>>>> In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and
>>>>> everybody can go it's way than.
>>>>> I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted
>>>>> anything, what was said.
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Jachym
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Morissette
>>>> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
>>>> http://www.mapgears.com/
>>>> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140915/7a8173ee/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list