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

Seven (aka Arnulf) seven at arnulf.us
Sat Mar 23 04:46:15 PDT 2013 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1

Looks good. Looking forward to seeing it go through Incubation.

Cheers,
Arnulf

On 03/22/2013 08:36 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Same here, +1. Thank you Tom for providing the extra details and
> I'm looking forward to finding out more about pycsw.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> On 13-03-22 4:05 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


- -- 
Seven of Nine
http://arnulf.us/Seven
Exploring Body, Space and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFNlgYACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b04EgCfer8etwibe+Z+Wwghh6DhX4iO
iUkAn1rTq0miC3F1B1d2N6DX2dq+HL+o
=33sD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

More information about the Incubator mailing list