[OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo

Mon Sep 15 12:30:14 PDT 2014

I would not really recommend that, sorry if this format of email discussion
is not working out for decisions.

The only thing I would recommend is that projects joint a software
foundation to help make successful open source projects.

I would recommend OSGeo incubation projects use or flexibility to graduate
in a quick efficient manner.

To be blunt I am not recommending LocationTech until I see their first
project graduate :)
--
Jody

Jody Garnett

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Massimiliano Cannata <
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:

> nice, so if I correctly interpret your recommended path would be:
>
> 1) apply to LocationTech (which is faster then OSGeo incubation) and then
>
> 2) when passed apply also to become an OSGeo project
>
> Some FOSS4G projects are GPL... (I think of GRASS for example), what these
> project should do as, if  I correctly understand,
> GPL is not "welcome" at locationtech? Follow the OSGeo incubation only?
>
> Maxi
>
> 2014-09-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Massimiliano Cannata*
>
> Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica
>
> Responsabile settore Geomatica
>
>
> Istituto scienze della Terra
>
> Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design
>
> Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana
>
> Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio
>
> Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14
>
> Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09
>
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
>
> *www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140915/57a713c0/attachment-0002.html>