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

Fri Mar 22 13:01:04 PDT 2013

Cameron: thanks for the ping.

For reference, the initial application can be found at http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029

To elaborate on Cameron's comments:

- pycsw powers GeoNode (http://geonode.org/) CSW server functionality
- pycsw powers Open Data Catalogue (https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog) CSW server functionality.  ODC is part of Code for America (http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6)
- pycsw has been chosen to power CKAN (http://ckan.org/) CSW server functionality, replacing the current CSW component.  Integration is in progress (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html).  CKAN will power the next iteration of the US data.gov project (http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/)

The abovementioned projects have significant and active communities, and as a result some pycsw activity and discussion naturally happens in those spaces.

Hope this helps.  And looking forward to the incubation requirements being flushed out and more clearly articulated moving forward.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:23:52 +1100
> From: cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> To: sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
> CC: Incubator at lists.osgeo.org; gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com; tomkralidis at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
>
> 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
> 		 	   		  