[Incubator] PyWPS incubation admittance
jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 00:50:51 EDT 2010
thank you for this summary. However, several thinks should be noted:
3. Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
IMHO no. http://www.ohloh.net/p/3860/factoids/2799644 fits.
8. Project has contributions and interest from more than just one
Same applies fo this. Contributors are gone by the time.
Markus Schneider píše v Ne 25. 04. 2010 v 22:58 +0200:
> 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
> I would like to share my observations / impressions on the state of
> PyWPS with respect to our project evaluation criteria
> - 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
> 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
> Apparently. This is judged based on the questions on the PyWPS mailing
> list and institutions/projects that are listed in the application to use
> 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
> 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
> 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,
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
PGP Public key: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20100426/36b41b70/attachment.bin
More information about the Incubator