[Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Fri Mar 22 12:23:52 PDT 2013

It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW 
included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.

Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them. 
I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation, 
as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions 
about community.

On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:
> The message below should have gone to the whole group.
>
> Landon
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
> To: Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>
>
>
> It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
> "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
> agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.
>
> If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
> open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
> be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
> requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
> that flexibility.
>
> I would recommend the following steps:
>
> 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
> surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.
>
> 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
> come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
> projects seeking incubation.
>
> I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
> I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
> incubation, if necessary.
>
> Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.
>
> Landon
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
> <woodbri at swoodbridge.com> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>>>
>>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
>>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
>>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
>>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
>>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
>>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
>>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
>>> but it is an important factor to me.
>>>
>>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
>>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
>>> is still at the top of our checklist:
>>>
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>
>>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
>>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
>>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
>>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
>>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>>>
>>>
>>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
>>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
>>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
>>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
>>> of that specific requirement.
>>>
>>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
>>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
>>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>>>
>>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
>>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
>>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
>>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
>>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
>>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
>>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>>>
>>>
>>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
>>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
>>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
>>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>>>
>>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
>>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
>>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
>>> project can give us an update?
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
>>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
>>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
>>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
>>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
>>> change.
>>
>> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is mostly
>> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has been very
>> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
>> another project which is in much better shape having a good community of
>> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real struggle to
>> get things done and to build any momentum.
>>
>> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
>> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) as
>> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that driving
>> force leaving and having the project collapse.
>>
>> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
>> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. Being
>> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is clear
>> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is needed
>> for a self sustaining community.
>>
>> -Steve W
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com