[Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model . . .

[Dan Little]

I'd love to come, having never been to the Pacific Northwest ... sponsors? LOL.


>
>From: DEAN ANDERSON <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us>
>To: Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us; geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 11:21:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] GeoMoose governance model  . . .
>
>Bob 
>
>I am hopeful that we will get our project spec done by May 1.  This should leave 
>about 2 months for hard programming for Houston Engineering.  This is all vapor 
>at this point but what I hope we can accomplish with our phase 2 project is... 
>
>
>1. Contribute to fixing known bugs in core. 
>2. Contribute to adding enhancements as agreed upon to core. 
>3. Formalize how Oregon Consortium deals with extensions and how that fits with 
>the greater GeoMoose population. 
>
>4. Expand capabilities through extensions. 
>
>This gives us about 2 months to agree to our project. The Oregon Consortium will 
>be meeting at the GIS-IN-Action conference in Portland Oregon at the end of 
>March.  Anyone who wants to attend is more then welcome.  We may not have all 
>the parts in place to make it all work but... our group has been very supportive 
>of GeoMoose and participating in the greater community. 
>
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>Dean 
>
>>>> "Bob Basques"  03/02/11 5:04 PM >>>
>
>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 
>
> 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20110311/76347c1d/attachment.html