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

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Fri Mar 22 13:05:40 PDT 2013 

Based on Tom's description of downstream community, I'm confident that 
the pycsw project has sufficient interest that it is set to become an 
important Open Source project for a long time to come.
I'm +1 for bringing pycsw into incubation.

On 23/03/2013 7:01 AM, Tom Kralidis wrote:
> 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
>> 		 	   		


-- 
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

More information about the Incubator mailing list