[OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
Andrew Ross
andrew.ross at eclipse.org
Wed Sep 17 07:33:13 PDT 2014
Bob,
For what it's worth, and it's the same at OSGeo of course, LocationTech
& the Eclipse Foundation want projects to want to join. It's always
optional.
It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that OSGeo would invest in the
specialized staff, infrastructure, and such to do the kind of rigorous
IP review that LocationTech & Eclipse Foundation projects receive. This
isn't a shot against OSGeo, it just is. There are other services &
infrastructure that are similar.
The good news is, so long as an OSGeo project was comfortable doing the
trademark assignment (part of the process), then a project could be dual
listed fairly comfortably. I don't think the benefit that OSGeo gets
from projects is diminished in this case. If this is comfortable to
everyone, I could see LocationTech projects do the same and list at OSGeo.
Andrew
On 17/09/14 08:08, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
>
> All,
>
> How would the separation of projects occur between those in OSGeo
> already vs those wanting to be LocationTech certified as well. I
> would imagine that some would not feel like they need to be certified
> by both. What happens in this case?
>
> Also, what are the longer term differences between LocationTech and
> OSGeo with regard to keeping code legally free of proprietary code,
> what's the followup on the Location tech side? I'm more in tune with
> OSGeo processes BTW.
>
> Bobb
>
> *From:*discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Jachym Cepicky
> *Sent:* Monday, September 15, 2014 4:59 AM
> *To:* Jody Garnett
> *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; Daniel Morissette
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Hacking OSGeo
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20418-696-5056%20%23201>
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140917/07f6d6d6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Discuss
mailing list