[Incubator] PyWPS incubation admittance

[Markus Schneider]

Hello,

as announced several weeks ago, I would like to bring up the issue of 
PyWPS incubation. As you may remember, I volunteered to act as the 
incubation mentor. However, up until now, no decision has been made with 
regard to PyWPS entering incubation in the first place.

I followed the PyWPS mailing list for several months now and also 
screened the relevant information on the projects homepage 
(http://pywps.wald.intevation.org/) and the incubation application 
(http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/337).

I would like to share my observations / impressions on the state of 
PyWPS with respect to our project evaluation criteria 
(http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html):

- Criteria -

1. The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects need 
to specify their choice for a type of license).

The license is GPL. The project is interested in having a dual-license 
model, but that should not be a problem (as has been discussed in an 
earlier PyWPS thread).

2. The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances.

Yes. Judging based on the incubation application.

3. The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial 
applications.

As it is an implementation of OGC's WPS (Web Processing Service) 
standard, this must be a yes: The WPS standard specifies a generic 
protocol for executing geospatial processes.

- Desirable -

For the desirable properties, I can report the following:

1.  Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality 
code).

Apparently. This is judged based on the questions on the PyWPS mailing 
list and institutions/projects that are listed in the application to use 
PyWPS.

2. Project already has a substantial user community.

Apparently. Judging based on mailing list traffic.

3. Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.

The project page/incubation application lists six official committers 
and eight contributors in total.

4. Project members are aware of, and implements support for, relevant
standards (ie. OGC, etc).

Yes, WPS 1.0.0.

5. Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.

Yes, it has direct support for GRASS GIS. Interacting with other OSGeo 
software is possible as well (e.g. offering processes that are backed by 
GDAL).

6. Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.

I think so. It seems to be the only Python-based WPS implementation (at 
least at OSGeo). GeoServer and deegree offer Java-based WPS 
implementations, however. (Sorry if I forgot anybody else...)

7. Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion.

Based on my observation and the incubation application, yes.

8. Project has contributions and interest from more than just one 
company/organization.

Yes. See http://pywps.wald.intevation.org/contributors/index.html

9. Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure (code 
repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation support 
infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent with the foundation.

I don't know about this one for sure. The incubation application says 
"We want to share the infrastructure [...]" as an answer to question 
"Why is hosting at OSGeo good for your project?"

Best regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Schneider

l a t / l o n  GmbH
Aennchenstrasse 19           53177 Bonn, Germany
phone ++49 +228 184960       fax ++49 +228 1849629
http://www.lat-lon.de        http://www.deegree.org