[Geomoose-users] GeoMoose organization

Wed Mar 2 11:47:53 EST 2011

Christopher,

   All of the requirements described in your documents fit within the 
scope of GeoMOOSE.  Some would require no changes to the Javascript or 
PHP; others (like buffering results handling) would require extensive 
coding (and that's ok with us!).

   To minimize your maintenance effort in the future, I would highly 
recommend you plan on contributing your enhancements back into the 
GeoMOOSE code base.  As Brian Fischer detailed in a previous reply, we 
are just beginning to work out a good process to move an enhancement 
from concept to committed (and maintained) code, but mature projects 
like Mapserver have a good example of a process that works well.

   Would you consider doing an RFC for one of the concepts in your 
documents to help us develop our process?

Best Regards,
Brent Fraser

On 3/1/2011 5:04 PM, Kroot, Christopher wrote:
> Hello Bob and Dean
> We have decided to move forward with GeoMoose.  I have attached 4 
> documents we discussed via email, one is a spreadsheet listing the 
> overall functionality required ( This is still a work in progress).  
> The three ms word documents are requirements for 3 of the projects we 
> are working on. We expect to begin our work within the next week.  The 
> tool that I have not been able to find is for drawing a buffer, or 
> creating a buffer automatically and then having a selected set of the 
> features that are within or intersect the buffer written to a 
> table/array for use in display and reporting, and to be able to do 
> multiple selections adding to the previously selected set.
> Is it possible to get the GeoMoose implementation code and associated 
> documentation that is being used in Clatsop county Oregon?  Do you 
> think this is the best implementation to start from? This is the base 
> we would like to start from.  It is one of the best web apps we have 
> found.
> We are excited to learn more about the GeoMoose product and are 
> grateful for all the work you and others have done to date.  I hope 
> that we are able to contribute to the effort in a meaningful way.
> Have a good day
> Christopher Kroot
> Enterprise GIS Analyst
> Maine Office of GIS
> SHS 174
> 264 Civic Center Drive
> Augusta ME 04333-0174
> christopher.kroot at maine.gov
> 207-592-0162
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bob Basques [mailto:Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 25, 2011 2:00 PM
> *To:* DEAN ANDERSON; geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net; Kroot, 
> Christopher
> *Subject:* Re: [Geomoose-users] GeoMoose organization
>
> Dean,
>
>
> Oh, you meant "the" wiki.  I haven't put much time into it either myself.
>
>
> I see the community portal link from the main page any everything. 
>   Good seeing this kind of thing posted to the working site too.
>
>
> Qusetion, is there a way to mark which are completed and which are 
> still open for enhancements that a re listed?   Does this make more 
> sense to add into TRAC in the future.
>
>
>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> After the WIKI was setup  we put our project stuff on the GeoMoose 
> Wiki Community Portal.  We elected not to separate ourselves from the 
> GeoMoose site and have a  separate effort and/or site as we want our 
> efforts to mesh with the rest of the GeoMoose users as much as possible.
>
> http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_County_Consortium
>
> The WIKI contains that last two projects and outlines planned projects 
> for this spring/summer.  We use the WIKI to collect input, document 
> requirements, and help prioritize projects. This information is then 
> used to work with Houston to develop a project spec.  As part of the 
> last project spec  Houston will post enhancements, etc.. on the WIKI 
> so our members have an easy way to download enhancements and others 
> can see them. My hope is that other groups will take advantage of the 
> community portal and put their project info there.
>
> Our group is pretty loose and informal.  We get together about every 
> 6+ weeks to...
>
> 1. Review web sites and interfaces and help each other to support our 
> common Oregon customers (the public).
> 2. Share results from existing projects.
> 3. Share tips and tricks.
> 4. Identify and prioritize projects for future development.
> 5. Get web based training when we need it.
> 6. Share funds in getting projects done.
>
> We will have a couple of more members go live in the coming month or 
> so.  My hope is that they will post a link to their site on the 
> gallery page.  Also, now that we can post documents to the WIKI we 
> will put some of our historical information there so I don't have to 
> e-mail it out. It is a cool process. I wish I had more time to spend 
> on it but as an IT guy I have other commitments.
>
> I will be submitting a paper to FOSS4G to describe our implementation 
> process including use cases.  We will also have a session to discuss 
> this at the GIS-In-Action conference in Portland Oregon next month.
>
> Dean
>
>
> >>> "Bob Basques"  02/25/11 9:14 AM >>>
>
> Dean,
>
>
> I think having a permanent or semi-permanent support structure in 
> place will only help and improve the implementors experience which 
> should translate to a better end user experience.   This has been an 
> identified need for quite a while within the group here.  No lack of 
> support for setting up a more formalized support structure, it's just 
> been more fun to develop.   The trick is putting it together in a way 
> that doesn't impede the development process, while still providing the 
> resources needed for the process.  I think a sheperding approach would 
> be the least invasive to the process.  It can also accommodate 
> representatives from different interested parties to decide priorities 
> as well  future capabilities and options for improvements.
>
>
> Your idea of a test project is a very good one.   This could be used 
> to shake out the bugs, so to speak, related to getting a group of 
> interested folks together and defining how support structure might be 
> set up to greatest effect.  This would be a very good presentational 
> piece for Denver as well, even if the project couldn't be completed 
> before then.  Just relating the process I think would be of interest 
> to others in the community.
>
>
> Do you have a direct link to the consortium website?
>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> It appears you are going to be at FOSSG,  perhaps that would be a good 
> place to talk about this some evening.  The Oregon Consortium would 
> like to help in this process along and we do have a limited amount of 
> funds to contribute. We  identified some of the same issues as a 
> priority for us at our last Oregon consortium meeting.  If folks would 
> like to do this sooner perhaps we could arrange something.    Perhaps 
> we could do a  project this summer and then review the results as a 
> group this September. Our project lists are documented on the Wiki in 
> the community pages section.
>
> We have made great progress to date in Oregon with GeoMoose to date 
> and would like to see the program continue to mature.
>
>
> Dean Anderson
> IT Director
> Polk County
>
>
>
> >>> "Bob Basques"  02/25/11 8:04 AM >>>
>
> Christopher,
>
>
> There are a few commercial and non-profit vendors available now that 
> have done quite a bit of work in the setup, development and research 
> related to GeoMoose and it's continued development, and this type of 
> support has progressed the project very nicely to date.  Having said 
> that I'm also aware of the need to setup some dedicated support 
> functions along the lines of bug fixes, continued development and 
> research into additional capabilities as well as integration with 
> other Opensource as well as proprietary GIS services and systems. 
>  These GeoMoose savvy groups also have some additional ideas and 
> capabilities already in the hopper related to improvements.   They are 
> also very interested in hearing from people and groups such as 
> yourself with respect to desired capabilities of the package.   I 
> would be interested in your specification (or capabilities) wish list 
> for example, regardless, purely for planning purposes.
>
>
> My thoughts in recent months have been in setting up some sort of 
> shepherding arrangement with the core developer group, that can handle 
> a supporting roll in the GeoMoose development process.   Such entities 
> already exist, either as commercial and/or non-profits, and are 
> interested in this type of work arrangement.  To date there hasn't 
> been a single large enough project or group of smaller projects with 
> similar enough interests to successfully sponsor the type of support 
> structure you are describing.
>
>
> I'm prepared to attempt the arrangement of such a framework with the 
> core development group once a seeding sponsor or sponsors (such as 
> yourself) have been identified as being interested in pursuing such an 
> arrangement.
>
>
> Please pass on your desired needs list and if you are interested in 
> discussing further, we can keep this thread going or go offline as well.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
> Bob Basques
>
> GIS Systems Developer
>
> City of Saint Paul, MN.
>
> 612.598.9210
>
>
> http://gis.ci.stpaul.mn.us
>
>
>
> >>> "Kroot, Christopher" <Christopher.Kroot at maine.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello all
>
> My name is Christopher Kroot and I am the enterprise GIS analyst for 
> the State of Maine Office of GIS. We are currently using mapserver to 
> create WMS for imagery.  We have developed a simple front end 
> application built with java script and php with mapserver as the 
> backend.  We have determine that others have progressed much further 
> down this road then we have and are looking at selecting a code base 
> for our current and future development.
>
> We are considering using GeoMoose as the code base for our enterprise 
> web mapping applications that have a mapserver backend.  Currently we 
> have 5 stakeholder groups who have provided us with the functionally 
> requirements for their web mapping needs.  My review of the Clatsop 
> County Web Maps 
> _http://maps.co.clatsop.or.us/applications/index.html#_  is promising, 
> as it contains most of the base functionality required.  We will be 
> investing a significant amount of resource in the coming years into 
> the environment we choose and want to select the best one to start with.
>
> What is the organizational structure for GeoMoose?  Are their funded 
> positions for maintenance and future development?
>
> We are using the ESRI ArcServer environment for web mapping that 
> requires complex spatial analysis, geoprocessing, other more complex 
> functional requirements.
>
> Thank you for your assistance and have a good day
>
> Christopher Kroot
> Enterprise GIS Analyst
> Maine Office of GIS
> SHS 174
> 264 Civic Center Drive
> Augusta ME 04333-0174
> christopher.kroot at maine.gov
> 207-592-0162
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software Download: Index, Search&  Analyze Logs and other IT data in
> Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data
> generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
> or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business
> insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geomoose-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20110302/3b91e36e/attachment.html