[Incubator] gvSIG project graduation

[Dimitris Kotzinos]

Hi Jody,

thanks for your time in posing questions and pushing the process forward.
Some clarifications inline:

On 12/8/15 1:30 π.μ., Jody Garnett wrote:
> To return to your email (sorry I got distracted and was focused just on
> the checklist and code review). Thanks for promptly answering any
> questions I have had thus far.
> 
>     I would like to ask the list to take the time and have a look to the
>     checklist mentioned above and if anything is found out of the order
>     please let me and Manuel Madrid <mmadrid at gvsig.com
>     <mailto:mmadrid at gvsig.com>> know.
>     I would also like to ask Jody to initiate the proper time period for
>     comments and declare the time for voting when the time comes.
> 
No problem, the graduation is a priority and my questions are just there
for discussion in the list.
> 
> I had hoped to be in position to recommend gvSig graduation for this
> Thursday's board meeting. 
> 
I was hoping the same, although I knew that it was a close call.
My only request is that we should make sure that we are ready for the
next board meeting so that we have a deadline and move things forward.

> I am afraid we may of hit summer holiday or something. It may be human
> nature to put off looking at paperwork until a motion is on the table
> (making things more real).
> 
I thought that my e-mail set forward the motion. If not, then my idea is
that we make the motion now and other committee members step in to
review whatever is needed. Of course if committee members need more time
we can wait but I have not seen any such request. I agree on the
vacation consideration and this is why I have stayed silent after the
first e-mail. But maybe there are not many questions, points to discuss
and thus everybody is waiting?
In any case I think that it is only fair to provide gvSIG people with a
more concrete timetable of how we move forward.

> I would like to see at least one other committee member review the
> checklist (and providence review). This would allow us to make a motion,
> and have someone second it.
> 
OK, us two had a look - as I said I had a rather extensive look. So do
we look for a third person?

>     P.S.2: Since during the process we had to switch from the checklist
>     v.1.0 to v.2.0 of graduation requirements I was wondering what is the
>     proper way to introduce comments and requests for changes for this.
> 
> 
> I think we could take it on a case by case basis. What the incubation
> process is trying to do has not changed, it was hoped that the new
> checklist would make things easier and less "abstract" (and thus open to
> endless discussion and wondering).
> 
> I have seen no need to go over v 1.0 vs v 2.0 graduation requirements,
> the few cases I have asked for clarifications have only been to ask for
> links (so members of this list and the public can have an easier time
> following what work was done).
> 
Sure.
My comment was not referring to the questions asked after the fact (my
e-mail) but to issues encountered while compiling the list and checking
in this case gvSIG's answers.
For example: in the part of "Open" the first question included a
subquestion on licenses. This is repeated in the second part on
"Copyright and License". It is not clear for me why we need to double
report something.
I might be missing or misunderstanding something. And my question was
which is the best way to report/pinpoint such issues ?

> By the same token language should not be a problem - we are trying to
> ensure discussion/decisions are in public (in whatever language).
> 
Indeed, that is also my idea. I just wanted to mention that this exists.

Thanks again, and please clarify when possible the path we need to follow.

Best regards,
Dimitris