[Incubator] MetaCRS

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Sep 14 18:13:28 PDT 2013

I apologise, my comments refer to proj4. I have previously used proj4j 
(which is probably why I keep getting the terms confused).

On 14/09/13 21:38, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
> You seem to be interchanging the names proj4 and proj4j in your 
> messages. Can you please indicate if you are refering to proj4 (the C 
> lib), proj4j (Java port of proj4), or to suggesting a combination of 
> both as an OSGeo project? In the latter case should we consider also 
> proj4js in the pack?
> Daniel
> On 13-09-13 11:08 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> Frank,
>> I'm ok with a project being in incubation if the project is making
>> steady progress toward an incubation goal. From what I can gather, the
>> MetaCRS project has stalled, and as such we should think about options,
>> such as incubating the sub-projects of MetaCRS individually.
>> I think that proj4j is worthy of an OSGeo stamp of approval. I expect
>> that proj4j would pass all OSGeo incubation criteria, except the broad
>> base of contributors?
>> The broad base of contributors criteria is a measure of the future
>> viability of the project. In the proj4 case, I believe that a strong
>> case can be presented that the project would continue on, even if Frank
>> were to stop maintaining it tomorrow.
>> Reasons:
>> 1. There are many technically competent proj4j uses with a vested
>> interest in proj4j being maintained. These users would almost certainly
>> step up to continue maintaining proj4j if required.
>> 2. proj4j is a very mature code base, which I suspect doesn't require
>> much maintenance any more?
>> As such, I'd like to see a case put forward for proj4 to be incubated,
>> as I think it would be voted through by our committee.
>> On 14/09/13 10:01, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>> Cameron,
>>> The reason MetaCRS was done as a sort of meta project was that it was
>>> perceived that each would be too small on it's own to be considered a
>>> viable community. If were to try and incubate them separately, how
>>> would we address that concern.  For instance, at least at times PROJ.4
>>> has been essentially a one man project despite having a fairly broad
>>> user base.
>>> I had vague aspirations that a sort of community would gel amount the
>>> components of the MetaCRS project.  There has been a little synergy
>>> out of this, but quite far short of what I might have hoped for in
>>> terms of gelling.
>>> I must say, I'm not sure of the way forward.
>>> I, personally, am ok with this sitting in incubation of for a while
>>> longer but I realize that some other folks on the committee would like
>>> to see time horizons shorter than a decade for the incubation 
>>> process. :-)
>>> We could actually reasonably easily (IMHO) push the copyright review
>>> phase ahead.  But I'm not sure how worthwhile that is without a
>>> meaningfully gelled shared community.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Frank
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     Daniel, Frank,
>>>     I suspect that the grouping of the MetaCRS projects together would
>>>     be making it hard to complete incubation, because you would be
>>>     needing to check back on all projects to confirm completion of
>>>     each incubation step?
>>>     Maybe a way forward would be to push each project through
>>>     incubation separately? I suspect that proj4j should be able to fly
>>>     through the criteria very quickly by itself?
>>>     On 13/09/13 23:13, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>         Hi Jody, all,
>>>         I am currently the mentor for the MetaCRS project, which is a
>>>         kind of a special case because it is an aggregate of multiple
>>>         CRS-related projects, given that each of them is not big
>>>         enough on its own, but that the services they provide are
>>>         critical to all OSGeo software, and we thought that
>>>         cross-collaboration between those projects can be a great
>>>         OSGeo asset and a way to raise their respective bus numbers.
>>>         I still believe that MetaCRS should try to get through
>>>         incubation, but I can't find the time to work with them in a
>>>         proactive way towards that (and they have not made that a
>>>         priority either).
>>>         All this to say that if another experienced mentor is
>>>         interested, then it may be a good idea that I leave this
>>>         project to a new mentor to work with the MetaCRS projects to
>>>         figure how to handle their special situation and get them
>>>         through incubation.
>>>         The lead of the MetaCRS project is Frank Warmerdam BTW.
>>>         Any volunteer?
>>>         Daniel
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- 
>>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>>> warmerdam at pobox.com <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
>>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>>> <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
>>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

More information about the Incubator mailing list