[geomoose-psc] MOTION: adopt guidelines for contributing to GeoMoose

Fri Aug 28 12:19:31 PDT 2026

Good points Jim.

I agree that addressing more than this PR in an RFC for the project is a better approach.  That would make
CONTRIBUTING.md derivative and all are free to make it more complete/helpful in the future without triggering a whole process.  The better approach is at odds with wanting to have something in place promptly.  We'll see if someone volunteers to do an RFC.  Taking this shortcut route definitely creates oddity and some process hiccups.

More inline below.

>________________________________________
>From: geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jim Klassen
>via geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 8:47 PM
>To: geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>Subject: Re: [geomoose-psc] MOTION: adopt guidelines for contributing to GeoMoose
>
>Eli and all,
>
>I agree we can't be voting on a changing document and like that you linked to a specific
>commit for the motion.  If the motion was still live, I would suggest that the
>motion/vote would be approving the text in that commit and not following the changes in
>the PR.  But, I think it was right to retract it.
>
>I would classify the new changes as more cleanup work (adding/fixing links) than changes
>to the core policy text.  What would the process be if these changes were proposed after
>the motion hypothetically passed?  Would they trigger the need for another
>motion/vote?
>This particular file is a little strange to me because it is in the gm3 repo (by necessity of
>making it more visible to new users and modern tooling) but where we generally don't
>have this level of formality generally reserved for RFCs.
>
>There are further changes I think we should include in a CONTRIBUTING.md file, such as
>going into more detail about how to write a helpful issue or PR.  Also, the process of the
>author attesting that they have the right to release the code under the GeoMoose license
>is
>murky at the moment and should probably be made more concrete.  RFC-4 covers
>committers/maintainers making such a declaration and being listed in the AUTHORS file,
>but leaves the process of determining if outside contributed code is properly licensed to
>the
>individual committers.
>
>My view is that we have an emergent need to publish an AI/LLM policy.  Given current
>norms, this needs to live in the code repo if it is going to be seen by the people/agents
>that we want to be aware of it.  My goal here isn't getting to a perfect CONTRIBUTING.md
>file before we move forward with publishing an AI policy.  I am trying to make the
>CONTRIBUTING.md file useful its own right (because once it exists, people will assume it
>is
>authoritative) and for it to be aligned with the existing official policies in the RFCs, docs,
>and website.  I don't think CONTRIBUTING.md is the proper place to create policy.
>
>My current thinking is that we should make the AI/LLM policy section from the
>CONTRIBUTING.md file as it is currently in the PR into a short RFC that applies to the
>whole GeoMoose project (not just the gm3 code base) and put that RFC up for a vote.
>Then assuming the RFC is approved, the CONTRIBUTING.md file could just
>state/reference
>that AI policy along with the other established policies.  And then because
>CONTRIBUTING.md is just referencing existing policy (instead of creating policy), we are
>free to make it more complete/helpful in the future without triggering a whole process.
>
>Also, I noticed that as per RFC-4:
> * we need to update the AUTHORS file.  Two members of the PSC are committers but are
>not currently listed in the AUTHORS file.

Ideally, that is the first PR for new committers.

> * Changes like adding the COGs and GeoParquet support probably should've been RFCs and
>not just votes on the PSC list as they seem like they might qualify as "larger
>changes".

This is just a matter of judgement, but probably.

> * or we could change RFC-4 to match how we are operating in practice.  I am happy either
>way about what rules we want to have in place, I just think we should be following our
>own
>rules.

Yes, we should follow our own rules (so it is less a matter of judgement above).  I did add it to my list to clean this up and discuss making our rules match what seems to be our practice.  Which is also the practice (and rules) from the projects we emulated.  For me this is still down the road.

At issue is this sentence:
MapServer - Proposals need to be available for review for at least two business days before a final decision can be made.
GDAL -          Proposals need to be available for review for at least two business days before a final decision can be made.
GeoMoose-  Proposals need to be available for review as an RFC posted on the GeoMoose site for at least two business days before a final decision can be made.

That may be the only change we need but I wanted to read more and discuss before pursuing.

In the context of adding a contributing guideline/LLM policy, https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1016 , we'll have to decide to go the better approach or put this in as a stop gap for now.

Best regards, Eli

>
>Jim

>On 8/27/26 3:51 PM, Eli Adam via geomoose-psc wrote:
>Hi Jeff and all,
>
>There is no motion to vote on (I retracted it/-1 it). https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/2026->August/001266.html
>
>Pertaining to process, there can't be changes and votes happening at the same time.  People now have an opportunity >to discuss or make more changes https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1016 .  Once there appears to be stability >with the pull request, I will make a new motion.
>
>Best regards, Eli
>________________________________________
>From: geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jeff McKenna via geomoose-psc ><geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 12:29 PM
>To: geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>Subject: Re: [geomoose-psc] MOTION: adopt guidelines for contributing to GeoMoose
>
>(I added another change into that pull request:
>https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/pull/1016 )
>
>+1 jeff

On 2026-08-27 3:40 p.m., Eli Adam via geomoose-psc wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed this some at the last PSC.  Dan and Jim have a draft
> completed and it is ready for voting.  Here it is for review, https://
> github.com/geomoose/gm3/blob/499fd5bef4817bcb56e2b9b0f62050063212fe6e/
> CONTRIBUTING.md <https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/
> blob/499fd5bef4817bcb56e2b9b0f62050063212fe6e/CONTRIBUTING.md>
>
> Please review and vote (making sure to include the email list).
>
> I'll start the voting:
> +1 Eli
>
> Best regards, Eli
>
>
> A note on process:  I'm making this motion on the email list and will
> let it run for at least two business days and then declare a clear
> result.  The subject line also makes this very clearly a MOTION.
>

_______________________________________________
geomoose-psc mailing list
geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc

_______________________________________________
geomoose-psc mailing list
geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20260828/579a5856/attachment-0001.htm>