[Incubator] Recommend Graduation of Rasdaman from OSGeo Incubation
Peter Baumann
p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Thu Jan 22 09:33:47 PST 2015
Cameron-
coming back on this, after some delay unfortunately.
Responses inline:
On 10/31/2014 08:57 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Thanks for the responses Peter, and offering to put the final touches on your
> incubation report. Comments in line.
>
> On 1/11/2014 2:07 am, Peter Baumann wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> see inline for the individual responses:
>>
>> On 10/18/2014 11:30 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> Hi Peter and Bruce,
>>> I've reviewed the incubation documentation provided, and provided a few spot
>>> reviews of the referenced documentation.
>>> Overall, I think the documentation is in good shape, but missing
>>> explanations, particularly around licenses and testing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Below are a few things that I'd like to see looked into before final sign off:
>>>
>>> Looking at: http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeoIncubationChecklist which provides
>>> the summary about how the project is ready to complete graduation.
>>>
>>> * For each statement that you are addressing, please add a brief sentence
>>> explaining HOW you are addressing the statement, possibly also with an OPINION.
>>> For instance, currently for: "Open communication channels", you have "see
>>> MailingLists".
>>> In reviewing, I can see that a mailing list has been set up. In looking at
>>> the list, I see users are asked questions on the user list and there are
>>> answers. I can see that auto-patch messages are being pumped into the
>>> developers list. In my quick scan, I can't see discussions between
>>> developers about a new feature, and discussions about a design idea. So I'd
>>> suggest describing how communication is happening. Maybe:
>>> "See MailingLists <URL>. User questions are typically addressed on the user
>>> email list. Development is currently mostly happening at Jacobs University,
>>> and discussions about development typically happen in person, and the
>>> results of such conversations are summarised onto the developer email list
>>> (or ...)."
>>
>> OK, we will try adding something I have never seen such a thing on any of the
>> graduation reports, and neither is this required by the questionnaire.
>> Hence, can you help us by providing an example project showing what OSGeo
>> expects?
>
> I've just had a look at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status
> In some places the added description is light. Eg description about how email
> lists is used is brief. However, if I follow the link to the list it is
> obvious how well the lists are being used.
>
> A good example for you to follow re comments from the GeoTools doc is:
>
> How many active developers are there? Are they from multiple organizations?
> There are around 10 developers working on geotools as part of their day
> job, the expanded list goes up to around 30 with commit access. The
> important part is the number of responsible module maintainers. While the
> project is made up of individuals (who happen to work for organizations
> such as Penn State University, Refractions Research, The Open Planning
> Project, IBM, Oracle, Google others...)
see answer to next post, following your recommendation there.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> * For "Open Source License": I'd be hoping to see a statement about the dual
>>> license, including a comment about the enterprise license. I'm ok with the
>>> dual license concept which I think fits with OSGeo principles. Further,
>>> from the material and links provided, it seems plausible that the GPL
>>> license terms are broken by LGPL and enterprise licensed products being
>>> distributed.
>>> I feel there needs to be an explanation of the enterprise license, and then
>>> about how LGPL products and enterprise products don't need to be GPL
>>> (because they don't link in any GPL libraries?).
>>
>> Available - there is even a dedicated page on this, just follow the link:
>> http://rasdaman.org/wiki/License
>
> The above link references enterprise features, but doesn't reference an
> enterprise license. If you are referencing "enterprise rasdaman" I would
> expect to be able to find a read the enterprise license.
here it is, on said page:
* A commercially supported, non-GPL-restricted variant of rasdaman
<http://www.rasdaman.com> is available which we recommend to all users who
have requirements that go beyond GPL.
>>
>>>
>>> * "/Long term viability/":
>>> Sentence needed here discussing roughly how many contributors you have, (as
>>> well as existing reference to patchmanager).
>>
>> Patchmanager is the source for the information on this, just choose "all" to
>> see all contributors.
>> Hm, not sure what else would need to be added.
>
> I suggest adding a statement like this:
>
> /There are around 10 developers working on geotools as part of their day job,
> the expanded list goes up to around 30 with commit access. The important part
> is the number of responsible module maintainers. While the project is made up
> of individuals (who happen to work for organizations such as Penn State
> University, Refractions Research, The Open Planning Project, IBM, Oracle,
> Google others...)/
>
> and add
> /for further details, refer to matchmanager, and select all./
Part 1 is varying and cannot be maintained upto date;
as for part 2, this exists already:
see contributors in http://rasdaman.org/patchmanager
>>
>>>
>>> * /Project documentation is available under an open license, as documented
>>> here: Legal/:
>>> The referenced "Legal" link doesn't talk about Documentation. Please
>>> reference correct documentation license link.
>>
>> oops, that should read "License" - fixed now. Good catch!
>>
>>>
>>> * /http://rasdaman.org/wiki/Legal/ :
>>> Remove references to "... blah-blah ..."
>>
>> why? ;-) cannot see much relevance for incubation as long as even industry
>> does not complain. But we are getting lost in details, admittedly.
> I assume you are making a joke, but in case you are not, I'll explain.
>
> The line which references "blah-blah" looks like it comes from a template and
> hence should be removed in a final document. And in particular, professional
> organisations (which is one of the user groups that OSGeo targets), expects to
> have professional level legal documentation which doesn't reference "blah-blah".
sure, corrected now :)
>
>>
>>>
>>> * " /Which includes execution of the testing process before releasing a
>>> stable release: http://212.201.49.21:35000/"/ :
>>> Link requires user log in. A sentence explaining testing will help here.
>>
>>>
>>> * "/All patches submitted to the repository undergo review before being
>>> applied to the code base: http://www.rasdaman.org/patchmanager/" :
>>> This doesn't confirm that patches are reviewed (by a person), only that you
>>> use patchmanager.
>>
>> ok, added "human".
>
> Checked http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeoIncubationChecklist, I can't see a
> reference to a process which includes reviewing patches before they are applied.
see Governance:
Patches are accepted by members of the PSC who all have commit rights.
>>
>>>
>>> * "/Systemtests are to be run by developers before submitting patches:
>>> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/CodeGuide/" :
>>> This code guide is good, but on my first pass, I can't see any reference to
>>> testing processes. How do you verify that all code is tested? Ideally
>>> reference continual integration or similar.
>>
>> We verify automatically by running a test against each patch; the outcome is
>> documented next to each patch once the test run has finished. This is quite a
>> new feature, though, and - as you have spotted - not all is in place yet.
>> The page is: http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/RasdamanTestSuites
>>
> OK, this test wiki you reference is a good start, but I notice it is still in
> draft state, with "TBD" and "TODO" text in it.
>
> This would need to be complete before I'd consider rasdaman is ready to
> complete incubation.
Hm, are really all graduated projects without any TBDs etc? I found TBDs on
osgeo.org, and 455 TODOs on PostGIS. How would you think about that in comparison?
Work anyway will progress in due course and depending on project situation, it's
in our own vest interest.
>
> I suggest that this test wiki should also be referenced from:
> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/CodeGuide
Cameron, somehow I feel we are getting into micro management. If we look at
incubated projects we find a range of different situations, and we do not even
speak about regular checking whether incubation quality is maintained.
While I am open for hints on improvement I am not sure that such finetuning has
to do with the original goals of incubation.
So let's see where we stand in year 5 since rasdaman's incubation request :)
cheers,
Peter
>
>>>
>>> * Link to /http://rasdaman.org/browser/systemtest/ is broken. I'm looking
>>> for evidence of testing processes, including unit testing, continuous
>>> integration, and a system testing plan which is executed.
>>
>> sorry for the broken link, fixed that:
>> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/RasdamanTestSuites
> thanks
>
>>
>> HTH,
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/10/2014 4:25 pm, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Project: Rasdaman
>>>>
>>>> Project Contact: Peter Baumann
>>>>
>>>> Project Mentor: Bruce Bannerman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Recommendation: Rasdaman to Graduate from OSGeo Incubation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incubation Checklist: http://rasdaman.org/wiki/OSGeoIncubationChecklist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comments:
>>>>
>>>> I have been monitoring and participating in the Rasdaman Community
>>>> developer and user email lists for over four years. I plan to continue to
>>>> participate within the community.
>>>>
>>>> It has been pleasing to see how the community has evolved over this time to
>>>> develop effective, open and robust processes.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend to other FOSS4G communities to review what has been done, as
>>>> you may well find that Rasdaman offers a compelling solution for the
>>>> management of multi-dimensional array or gridded data that your project may
>>>> be able to capitalise on.
>>>>
>>>> A summary of community activity may be found at:
>>>> https://www.openhub.net/p/rasdaman
>>>>
>>>> Key project members are active within both OSGeo and the OGC.
>>>>
>>>> Within the OGC they have successfully guided a range of standards to
>>>> support mutltidimensional array (gridded) data which have culminated
>>>> (currently) in Web Coverage Service version 2.0 and a suite of extensions,
>>>> see: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs
>>>>
>>>> The project's principal, Professor Peter Baumann was also recently awarded
>>>> OGC's prestigious Kenneth D Gardels award for his contributions to OGC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After having participated within the community for four years and having
>>>> reviewed their OSGeo Project Graduation Checklist, I believe that Rasdaman
>>>> Community have fulfilled the requirements of OSGeo Incubation and are
>>>> eligible to graduate as an OSGeo Project.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only reservation that I have is over the dual licensing model that is
>>>> used by the sponsoring company, Rasdaman GmbH. See:
>>>> http://www.rasdaman.com/Product/commercial+free.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two versions: Community (GPL and LGPL) and Enterprise (free from
>>>> GPL constraints).
>>>>
>>>> The main difference between the two versions is summarised at:
>>>> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Features
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This dual licensing may create a problem for the Rasdaman Community in the
>>>> future should Rasdaman GmbH decide to sell its stake in the Rasdaman
>>>> Enterprise version of the software. We have already seen a similar
>>>> situation arise after the sale of MySQL which was similarly licensed.
>>>>
>>>> However as the community edition of the software is released under open
>>>> source licenses, I expect that the main impact would be to the continuity
>>>> of the Rasdaman Community in its current form. In the event of a sale, we
>>>> may see the software forked, as happened with MySQL.
>>>>
>>>> For consideration and vote.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>> LISAsoft
>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>
>>> P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Baumann
>> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
>> mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
>> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
>> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
>> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
>> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20150122/1aa6ec42/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list