[OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo

Mon Sep 15 12:38:21 PDT 2014

My reply was probably too quick.

Depending on where your project is starting from you may find an easier
time with different organisations:

* Some projects will be able to breeze through LocationTech incubation, and
then struggle with our OSGeo requirements.

* Other projects may have great community support and ace OSGeo
requirements, only to fall down on the strict LocationTech IP review, and
project governance procedures.

I can only speak for these two, as I am keen on their success. There are
always other options Apache Foundation offers amazing protection at the
price of some amazing restrictions.

The point is these organisations have the same goal (showing open source
mapping some love).
--
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/ceaad27b/attachment-0002.html>