[fdo-internals] FDO Incubation update

[Greg Boone]

Graduation is a critical milestone for us. Based on the limited time and resources we have to address this issue adequately, I advocate removing the test data (at least that data we are unsure of) and deal with the issue after graduation is complete.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:42 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FDO Incubation update

Greg, Frank,

What do we want to do about the test data? Do we consider this a blocker
for graduation or not?

This seems to be the only pending issue based on my review. The other
issue was the contributor agreements that are not signed, but Greg's
note to fdo-internal stating that those who do not send a contributor
agreement by the graduation date will have their rights suspended until
  their agreement is submitted sounds like an acceptable solution to me.

If we can address the test data question quickly then FDO we may be able
to make the Feb 2008 Cohort Graduation with GRASS and GDAL.

Daniel



Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Greg Boone wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The more I think about the provider test data we have in our SVN, the
>> more I
>> believe that we have not put enough effort into determining what data we
>> truly have the right to publish in our distribution files, or even
>> store in
>> our SVN. There seems to be multiple locations where we have determined
>> that
>> the data originates from public or governmental web sites, but that in
>> and
>> of itself does not give us permission to distribute in zip form, or to
>> maintain a copy. I am now thinking that the provider test data should be
>> removed from the SVN if the distribution rights are at all in
>> question. This
>> act would allow us in part to graduate incubation. Once incubation is
>> complete and 3.3.0 is released, we can begin a piecemeal process of
>> resubmitting test data that has been vetted more carefully.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
> Greg,
>
> I think we need to look at this on a case by case basis.
>
> But I also think we need to take this on a "risk management" basis.  IMHO
> it isn't critical that we can trace a file back to a specific distribution
> point, and confirm the license associated with it.  It should be sufficient
> to be confident that the data is released under a license that allows us
> to redistribute it.
>
> So, for instance, I was intimately involved in the original release of the
> "pci_eg" data files and am confident that the intent was for them to be
> redistributable.  Likewise, when we have DTED level 1 files we know that
> the government redistributes these as public domain data even if we
> can't easily confirm exactly where we got these.
>
> I am concerned that once we remove data files, and drop the corresponding
> test suite tests it will be hard to restore this without quite a bit of
> work.  We should drop files if we have no confidence in their
> appropriateness
> to redistribute *but* we don't need to demonstrate a detailed trail of
> provenance for them either.
>
> Best regards,


--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals