[Incubator] PyWPS incubation admittance

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,
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 
company/organization.

Same applies fo this. Contributors are gone by the time. 

Jachym


Markus Schneider píše v Ne 25. 04. 2010 v 22:58 +0200: 
> 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
> 


-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
PGP Public key: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20100426/36b41b70/attachment.bin