[Incubator] gvSIG project graduation
dmorissette at mapgears.com
Thu Sep 10 07:01:38 PDT 2015
Thank you for your detailed response. I have to admit that what is
happening here with your TSC turning into staff performing day to day
project management is setting a precedent and I'm not sure what that
means for OSGeo's incubation criterias.
Can you please provide more details on what you mean by "that part was
reviewed and accepted already"? Do you have links to emails relating to
that? Once a project enters incubation, the next formal acceptance step
is the graduation which is what we are discussing today. There is no
intermediate acceptance step that I aware of, so I'd like to know why
you think part of the checklist has been accepted already.
My personal reaction would be to ask to have the checklist reflect
today's reality with respect to the TSC and decision making, but I don't
want to cause you to do extra work until we hear from other Incubation
committee members on this question.
Also, having staff perform the day to day management of the project
through face to face discussion may be more efficient (I have no
doubts), but that doesn't directly meet the "Open decision making
process" expectations that we have put on all other projects so far, so
the Incubation committee will have to decide on how we deal with that.
Do we treat gvSIG as an exception, or decide that open decision process
is no longer a requirement? And if we remove that requirement then how
do we distinguish between a private company just pushing its source code
to the public and a project managed the way gvSIG is managed?
The reason for the open decision making process is to make it easier for
new external contributors to join the day to day management of the
project and by the same way increase the project long term viability by
preventing the dependence on staff from a single organization.
For instance, several years ago I was the mentor for the MapGuide and
later on the FDO projects and we worked hard with them to move the
decision making from face to face discussions inside Autodesk offices to
the respective project mailing lists in order to open up to the community.
Sorry for the long email. I'd like to hear what other IncCom members think.
On 2015-09-10 6:20 AM, Alvaro Anguix wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> El 10/09/15 a las 04:12, Daniel Morissette escribió:
>> Dear All,
>> I started looking into the gvSIG incubation checklist at
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist and am having a
>> hard time tracking down info about the Technical Steering Committee.
>> The checklist points to
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Technical_Steering_Committee which in
>> turn points to two broken links for the
>> [https://gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion gvSIG TSC front
>> page] and [https://lists.forge.osor.eu/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub
>> public mailing list]
>> Can you please review the Incubation Checklist page (and the pages
>> that it links to) and make sure all links are working? I'd like to see
>> archives of the TSC mailing list showing that decisions are indeed
>> made in an open manner and in collaboration with the community on a
>> public list and I cannot find that at the moment. I managed to find an
>> old TSC archive at
>> http://joinup.ec.europa.eu/mailman/listinfo/gvsig-desktop-tsc-pub but
>> the most recent posts date from 2013.
> Thank you for the feedback!.
> You are completely right. In its day, that part was reviewed and
> accepted already, so we complete the reviewing tasks that were pending.
> And right, there has been enough time to evolve the management of that
> Such was the case that we didn't pay attention to these links, and with
> the new gvSIG website (<http://www.gvsig.org/>www.gvsig.org), to consult
> the contents of the old website, the text “docs” has to be added to the
> URL. For example, the link
> With the advance of the project we have been correcting issues that we
> think they make us to be more efficient. Efficient in the meaning of
> eliminating the bureaucratic parts and speed up the decision making. It
> has also been possible, in a big part, thank to the professional
> structure of the project who works daily for the project. It can be
> different to other projects. It makes that the day-to-day decisions can
> be made by people of the professional structure (there's an architecture
> and development manager, and a product manager). The efficacy has been
> notable, and having a meeting every week to make small decisions didn't
> make as much as sense. It is thank to the professional structure that
> can dedicate all the time to gvSIG.
> And the TSC, that is composed of the main developers that are working on
> gvSIG, has a meeting after every final version in order to make
> decisions for the next version. Currently it is planned to release 2
> versions per year (one version in May and another one in December),
> although this year it has been an exception because we will release
> three versions (gvSIG 2.3 will be released in December). At that meeting
> it is decided what to work on for the next version. For example, for
> gvSIG 2.3, the next version, it's panned to make the effort to have a
> first distribution for MAC OS X and Windows 64 bits. It involves to
> change libraries for raster accessing and projections mainly... and we
> are working on it now.
> And instead of having proceedings, we preferred to advance one more step
> and publish the decisions publicly, because the proceedings are not read
> by a lot of people. Concretely in our blog. At this way, following the
> example of gvSIG 2.3, we announced that decision (this is the link in
> English but it was published in Spanish too):
> Of course it doesn't mean that gvSIG includes only these changes. We
> have to include all the possible functionalities developed by the
> community that are integrated with that version (but it's out of the
> initial planning and the gvSIG scope of decision).
> And there's also some decisions about some objectives at these meetings
> that are not carried out at the next version. It is listed at the gvSIG
> redmine, at the “whislist” option -the access to this list is also public-:
> *In summary:*
> We can correct these links, adding “docs”, but it wouldn't make much
> sense because now we work in another way, although it was reviewed then.
> It's another way that I think it is more open and agile.
> We would be able to summarize the information of this e-mail and add it
> to the checklist.
> And thank you again for reviewing our job!
> Alvaro Anguix
> gvSIG Association
>> On 2015-08-11 1:07 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> General call out to the committee to help review on this one :)
>>> Jody Garnett
>>> On 28 July 2015 at 04:27, Dimitris Kotzinos <kotzino at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kotzino at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> I am happy today to report to the list that the gvSIG project has
>>> fulfilled in my view all the criteria put forward by the OSGeo
>>> Incubation Committee and as the project mentor I support the
>>> request for graduation.
>>> gvSIG is one of the healthiest and very active projects around,
>>> with a
>>> solid developer and user base. It has been around for a long time
>>> has done excellent things, the latest being an award at the NASA
>>> Wind contest received in FOSS4G-Europe in Como, Italy this month.
>>> I had the chance to meet with the gvSIG people at FOSS4G-E in
>>> Como and
>>> we finalized the checklist for the project graduation. You can
>>> find the
>>> checklist here:
>>> The people around gvSIG have responded greatly to all the requests I
>>> made as a mentor, they have gone even beyond that in many occasions,
>>> e.g. by providing live statistics on their developers' activity.
>>> They have gone through a code provenance review, they have user and
>>> developer lists in many languages and they have in place governance
>>> practices that abide with what I would consider proper governance of
>>> open source projects.
>>> 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.
>>> Finally I would like to thank Manuel and Alvaro from the gvSIG
>>> Association for their excellent collaboration and to publicly
>>> to them that sometimes the work load prohibited me to be as
>>> and responsive as I would like.
>>> Thank you for your attention,
>>> Best regards,
>>> P.S.1: Although the project has made a great effort to provide
>>> documentation for ... everything, some things might be found in
>>> (their language of origin), as well as some of the most active
>>> lists are
>>> the Spanish ones. I respected that and I let the project take its
>>> and decide by itself on what to translate and what not.
>>> But I would like to say kudos on their efforts to provide
>>> everything in
>>> at least both Spanish and English.
>>> 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
>>> proper way to introduce comments and requests for changes for this.
>>> Dimitris Kotzinos
>>> Head MIDI team
>>> Lab. ETIS (ENSEA/UCP/CNRS UMR 8051)
>>> & Dept. Sciences Informatiques, Université de Cergy-Pontoise
>>> 2 av. Adolphe Chauvin
>>> Site Saint Martin, bureau A561
>>> 95000 Pontoise
>>> phone: +33 13425 2855
>>> e-mail: Dimitrios.Kotzinos at u-cergy.fr
>>> <mailto:Dimitrios.Kotzinos at u-cergy.fr>
>>> Incubator mailing list
>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> Incubator mailing list
>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
http://evouala.com/ - Location Intelligence Made Easy
More information about the Incubator