[Incubator] MetaCRS

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at mapgears.com
Sun Sep 15 13:38:15 PDT 2013

Treating Proj4, and its derivatives as a grouped project if their owners 
are interested may still be a good idea and easier to manage as a single 
project than MetaCRS because of the common codebase.

BTW, in addition to PROJ4J and PROJ4JS, I just found out about 


On 13-09-14 9:13 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

Daniel Morissette
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

More information about the Incubator mailing list