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

Bruce Bannerman B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au
Sun Mar 24 15:21:29 PDT 2013


On 23/03/13 7:36 AM, "Daniel Morissette" <dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:

Same here, +1. Thank you Tom for providing the extra details and I'm
looking forward to finding out more about pycsw.


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

Daniel Morissette
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

Incubator mailing list
Incubator at lists.osgeo.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20130325/cf853329/attachment.html>

More information about the Incubator mailing list