[Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

[Cameron Shorter]

I'm now +1 for GeoMoose graduation - I see that the tickets mentioned 
below have been actioned. Thanks to the GeoMoose community for the hard 
work you have put in.

On 21/03/2013 10:51 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Some questions and comments on GeoMoose after reading through the 
> Incubation Checklist here: 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>
> (I think the project is getting close, but not quite ready to complete 
> graduation)
>
> 1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project, from 5 
> organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable number for 
> a maturing project if the organisations are independent of each other.
> However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these developers and 
> organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored by the one 
> agency?
>
> 2. It seems there are still some of loose ends which are still to be 
> addressed, and I think that projects should not ask for graduation 
> approval until they have been addressed. In particular, Jody mentioned:
> * No clear statement yet on the licence of documentation? Reference to 
> an email discussion about license, doesn't constitute completion. I'm 
> looking for a license statement on website or developer guidelines or 
> similar.
> * While not a show stopper, I'd expect that code contributors should 
> be able to contribute code under the project's MIT license, rather 
> than being required to contribute under public domain.
> * I see there are 2 outstanding tickets 179, 180 addressing license 
> issues. I'd like to see these addressed before we consider the project 
> ready to complete graduation.
>
> Documentation:
> http://www.geomoose.org/developer/index.html
> * I notice that core documentation is being stored in a RFC, eg: 
> "Project Steering Committee Guidelines".
> * I'd expect that once the RFC has been approved, that the 
> documentation is moved into the main documentation structure from 
> which it can continue to be maintained. (I see RFCs as decisions that 
> have been made, and then fixed in time, rather than current working 
> documentation).
>
> * Link to "How to Release" points nowhere.
>
> * Project Officer: No one named yet. I'd expect a volunteer to be 
> identified.
>
>
>
> On 18/03/2013 3:55 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from 
>> the incubation process.
>>
>>
>
> On 13/03/2013 4:45 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Here is the checklist now:
>> - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>>
>> Discussion is open if you have any questions, everything looks in 
>> order from my point of view.
>>
>> A couple of notes from my time as mentor:
>> - the project decisions have gotten way easier to track, with a 
>> separate email list and RFC process.
>> - the documentation license question was interesting (as we had the 
>> same discussion for GeoServer) - the result in this case is the 
>> documentation being covered under the same MIT license as the codebase
>> - code contribution agreement is handled via contributors donating 
>> work into the public domain (there are two outstanding trace issues 
>> to patch the developers guide)
>> - provenance review did not turn up anything special, sample data was 
>> credited or replaced with toy data
>> - project officer is TBD (and can be nominated when we send the 
>> project up to the board for approval)
>>
>
>


-- 
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