[Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model . . .

[Eli Adam]

+1 to having some standardized governance.  
+1 to starting a wiki page (thanks Brian).
+1 to having a meeting at FOSS4G

More notes on the wiki.  I think that it would not be too difficult nor take very long to adopt a good  governance model for GeoMoose.  I think that it will mostly be copying an existing long time functioning governance model from some other project.

http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GM_Project_Goverance_Model

Best Regards, Eli



>>> On 3/2/2011 at 2:11 PM, in message
<B850B3523E82404C80A8ACAC40BAFDF556F06A88 at ex2010.houstonengineeringinc.com>,
Brian Fischer <bfischer at houstoneng.com> wrote:
> Yes, we need to move this forward.  Let's get these ideas on a wiki page.  
> I've started one at 
> http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GM_Project_Goverance_Model.  Please 
> add to it.  I'll try to spend some more time over the next few weeks flushing 
> out my ideas as well.
> Thanks!
> Brian Fischer, CFM  GIS Manager

>>> On 3/2/2011 at 5:04 PM, in message <4D6E94A8020000A800027234 at heckle>, "Bob
Basques" <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

> Dean, 
> 
> Excellent on the project offer.  What timeline are you anticipating?  I'm 
> thinking it may take some time to get certain pieces into place and agreed on 
> by everyone, which I think is mostly desirable for everyone's benefit in the 
> long run. 
> 
> The process may move along slightly slower than in the recent past as well 
> for obvious reasons.  But I think building the process out around an actual 
> project will be a good one overall. 
> 
> bobb 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> Bob 
> 
>   
> 
> Yes I think this summarizes our discussions in Oregon as well.  A few issues 
> that need to be addressed in the process. 
> 
>   
> 
> 1. Process to enhance core software. 
> 
> 2. Process to standardize share extensions. 
> 
> 3. Expand/standardize technical developer documentation. 
> 
>   
> 
> We (Oregon Consortium) would be happy to put forth our upcoming "Phase 2" 
> development project as way to test the process. 
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> Dean Anderson 
> 
> IT Director 
> 
> Polk County
> 
>>>> "Bob Basques" <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> 3/2/2011 7:08 AM >>>
> 
> 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