[OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Ian Turton ijturton at gmail.com
Sun May 15 09:40:25 PDT 2016


I think you have missed the point of my tales, both the projects that I
wrote about are open source (by any definition) but only the one with an
open organisation is thriving.

OSGeo is designed to support open and sustainable development of geospatial
solutions. A benevolent dictatorship is a fragile model of governance and
so can not be acceptable to us as a foundation.

The (perceived) quality of the software is of no importance in this
discussion if the project fails due to a lack of community.


PS open hub notes geotools has 241 contributors if we are measuring success
in these metrics.
On 15 May 2016 14:40, "Marco Afonso" <mafonso333 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anita,
> Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality evaluation AND
> project organization evaluation.
> So you can exclude an open source software with high quality if their
> organization evaluation is low.
> For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is only limited
> by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)
> Cheers
> Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" <anitagraser at gmx.at> escreveu:
>> Hi Marco,
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <mafonso333 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Once the software (as an object) is available on a public repository, it
>>> only matters it's license terms to evaluate it's restrictions. From there,
>>> it is irrelevant "whos behind it".
>> ​Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo incubation is
>> to evaluate a software project (software and organisation) therefore it
>> makes no sense to limit discussions to software quality.
>> Best wishes,
>> Anita​
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160515/6bead91c/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list