[Incubator] Motion: deegree incubation graduation
warmerdam at pobox.com
Fri Jan 15 20:50:18 EST 2010
Markus Schneider wrote:
>> * Please remove TBD's from the following page:
> Agreed. This has to be done, but has been postponed, because we thought
> it'd be better not to change documentation while others review the artefacts.
> Responding to Arnulf's question for improvements in the incubation process: Maybe the guidelines could be clarified
> here. Is it favored to update the incubation artefacts during an ongoing review / motion of the incubation committee?
I think the project should continue to update documents as procedures
are refined regardless of the review process of the incubation committee.
>> Code Review:
>> * This has comments which include:
>> "As far as we remember, Wolfgang Baer allowed to put this code under the
>> LGPL. TODO: confirm this".
>> I'm afraid this would not placate a lawyer who has been asked to check
>> whether this code can be used for the project or not.
>> I'd like to see a description about how this issue is planned to be
>> solved, or whether it has been decided to ignore the issue and only
>> re-visit if someone challenges the project.
> You're right, there is still one unresolved issue in the code review. There had been an email conversation between
> Wolfgang Baer and the deegree developers that allows us to put the code under the LGPL, but we were unable to find it,
> because this was several years ago.
> We sent a new email to Wolfgang Baer recently and are waiting for a renewed confirmation.
For some other projects we have asked that outstanding issues from the
provenance review be turned into tickets in the hope that they are less
likely to be forgotten. It is ok for there to be outstanding issues
(IMHO) as long as they are in hand, and will be addressed in due course.
>> And finally, I'd expect the committer guidelines to be finalised before
>> OSGeo incubation is complete:
>> Are Committer Responsibilities Guidelines
>> covering legal issues in place?
> Is this section in our committer guidelines document not sufficient?
> Committers are the front line gatekeepers to keep the code base clear of improperly contributed code. It is important to
> the deegree users, developers and the OSGeo foundation to avoid contributing any code to the project without it being
> clearly licensed under the project license.
> Generally speaking the key issues are that those providing code to be included in the repository understand that the
> code will be released under the LGPL license, and that the person providing the code has the right to contribute the
> code. For the committer themselves understanding about the license is hopefully clear. For other contributors, the
> commiter should verify the understanding unless the committer is very comfortable that the contributor understands the
> license (for instance frequent contributors).
This seems adequate to me as long as all the committers demonstrate
they are aware of it.
>> A document
>> <http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/deegreeCommitterGuidelines> has
>> been set up be the PSC. It still needs final review and then has to
>> be accepted by all committers.
> Yes, this task is not finished yet. Does somebody have advises on a good process for this?
I would suggest asking all developers to announce once they have reviewed
the guidelines if they agree to them on the developer mailing list. A
tally should be kept, and anyone who doesn't respond in some reasonable
time (and after a bit of prompting) should be removed from the committer
list. For GDAL I took this as an opportunity to clear away a few inactive
Likewise, having new committers announce their review, and agreement
to the guidelines on the public developers list is a good practice.
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
More information about the Incubator