[Geomoose-users] Geomoose-users Digest, Vol 42, Issue 4 - Email contains a url listed on "globalmail.org"

[Steve Dougill]

I like the direction of this discussion.  The Oregon counties consortium
have been developing GM2.2 with numerous additions, basically for County
government applications.  We have many features that would seem suitable
for core but need some additional work and tie-ins to mapbook to clean
them up e.g. we have a loading graphic working great but it is not
configurable in the mapbook yet.  Similarly, the hide / show frame tool
that was present in earlier versions of GM.  We have some cool query
functionality but it is dependent on a custom query php file.  We have
talked about this extensively and would like a framework developed to
share these features and to bring them into core.

One discussion point will be the development of some functionality that
is easier when using PostGIS.

Yes, I would vote for more structure

Steve Dougill
Crook County GIS - IT - Web
267 NE 2nd St, Suite 200, Prineville, OR 97754
Tel. 541.416.3930
http://gis.co.crook.or.us/




   1. GeoMoose governance model  . . . (Bob Basques)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:08:39 -0600
From: "Bob Basques" <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Subject: [Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model  . . .
To: <geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <4D6E0917020000A8000270F0 at heckle>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


All, 

I'm starting a new thread here to start up a discussion related to
implementing some sort of governance model for GeoMoose.  Believe it or
not, the project has gotten to where it is in a fairly fractured
fashion.   There have been champions of the product from different
perspectives along the way as well, developers, salesman, usability
(myself), and flexibilty among others.  Each of these capabilities
champions have pushed the product to where it is today in a very
informal collaborative environment.   

I believe we're collectively at a point where the next level of
operations needs to be implemented and some formality to some tasks need
to be implemented.  Roadmap and feature items need to be recorded and
prioritized, as well as vetting of these additions, how will they affect
the product moving forward, should they be core or add-on (plugin)
constructs, etc.   A capabilitites proposal and voting system needs to
be implemented in some fashion as well.  I'm not suggesting jumping
straight to a overly strict process, but a process does need to be
described for each of these tasks inorder not to fracture resources and
development aims.  Some of these topics have already been addressed on
the list and some still need to be discussed further. 

In general, I'm asking here, is it fair to assume that we're all in
agreement with the above listed organizational points needed to be put
more formally into place?   Yes+ or No- to  further discussing moving
the GeoMoose project to a more structured one. 

If you are on this list, you can vote. 

Thanks 

Bob Basques 
City of Saint Paul 
-------------- next part --------------