[Incubator] gvSIG project graduation

Alvaro Anguix aanguix at gvsig.com
Mon Sep 14 04:39:49 PDT 2015

Hello Cameron,

El 13/09/15 a las 12:31, Cameron Shorter escribió:
> I agree with Daniel, Jody and Evan's comments.
> 1. Major decisions should be documented in an publicly visible archive
> as a minimum, preferably with links to discussion (such as chat logs
> or email list threads).
> 2. The decision making process should be documented, and be open to
> community participation (such as through a PSC or similar)
About (1), as we've told, the important decisions are published where it
is more visible, at the gvSIG blog (currently from 500 to 1000 visits
every day). The day-to-day decisions are made by the professional
Respecting (2), about the organization model you have the details here: 
As it was commented previously, there are meetings every six months in
order to define the next version. About the participation, we go beyond
a technical management, and companies participate at the economical
decision making of the project, and at the responsibility of supporting
the professional structure. 
We also told that some years ago, when a professional structure wasn't
possible, there was a voluntaries scheme. In our case, and from our
experience it would be a regression to return to model like that, much
more inefficient; at least in a software development model oriented to
organizations and not to individuals. 
I think we don't have to talk in circles about the same. Explained our
model, I think the incubation committee has to decide about the gvSIG
graduation or not.


> On 11/09/2015 12:44 am, Even Rouault wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Not an IncCom member, but just adding my 2 cents.
>> I really think that the open decision making process is an important,
>> and
>> valuable, characteristics of OSGeo projects. Beyond the fundamental
>> reason
>> given by Daniel (making it as easy as possible for outsiders to
>> join), I also
>> think that having written decisions is important for a long existing
>> project.
>> Sometimes you look back in the past and wonder "why is that thing the
>> way it
>> is today?" and having traces of what was decided 5 years ago or more
>> can be
>> valuable. Writing things generally lead to better quality proposals
>> since you
>> need to better structure your thoughts. Of course all this apply to
>> changes
>> that have major or architectural impacts. Day to day smaller changes
>> can be
>> dealt more informally.
>> A few examples of open decision making :
>> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/RfcList
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/Proposals
>> Even
>>> Daniel
>>> 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
>>>> part.
>>>> 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
>>>> (<https://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion>https://gvsig.or
>>>> g/web/working-groups/organizacion)would be:
>>>> <http://docs.gvsig.org/web/working-groups/organizacion>http://docs.gvsig.
>>>> org/web/working-groups/organizacion
>>>> 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):
>>>> <http://blog.gvsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/>http://blog.g
>>>> vsig.org/2015/06/25/on-the-road-to-gvsig-2-3/
>>>> 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-:
>>>> <https://redmine.gvsig.net/redmine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%3F
>>>> &set_filter=1&f[]=status_id&op[status_id]=o&f[]=tracker_id&op[tracker_id]
>>>> =%3D&v[tracker_id][]=11&f[]=&c[]=tracker&c[]=status&c[]=priority&c[]=subj
>>>> ect&c[]=assigned_to&c[]=updated_on&group_by>https://redmine.gvsig.net/red
>>>> mine/projects/gvsig-desktop/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f[]=status
>>>> _id&op[status_id]=o&f[]=tracker_id&op[tracker_id]=%3D&v[tracker_id][]=11&
>>>> f[]=&c[]=tracker&c[]=status&c[]=priority&c[]=subject&c[]=assigned_to&c[]=
>>>> updated_on&group_by=
>>>> *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
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> project's
>>>>>>      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
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>      has done excellent things, the latest being an award at the
>>>>>> NASA
>>>>>> World
>>>>>>      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:
>>>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GvSIG_Incubation_Checklist
>>>>>>      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
>>>>>> apologize
>>>>>>      to them that sometimes the work load prohibited me to be as
>>>>>> available
>>>>>>      and responsive as I would like.
>>>>>>           Thank you for your attention,
>>>>>>      Best regards,
>>>>>>           Dimitris
>>>>>>           P.S.1: Although the project has made a great effort to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> English
>>>>>>      documentation for ... everything, some things might be found in
>>>>>> Spanish
>>>>>>      (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
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>      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
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>      proper way to introduce comments and requests for changes
>>>>>> for this.
>>>>>>                --
>>>>>>      Dimitris Kotzinos
>>>>>>      Professor
>>>>>>      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
>>>>>>      France
>>>>>>      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>
>>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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

More information about the Incubator mailing list