[Incubator] gvSIG project graduation

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 13:51:57 PDT 2015

I'm satisfied that gvSIG is a successful open source project and has 
organically developed processes which work best for the gvSIG community. 
(In my mind, this makes the processes worthy of OSGeo graduation).

I think the only thing left is
a. Document the processes (I think you have done that?)
b. Reference the documented processes from 
I'm not sure that is complete yet? Eg: I can't see reference to you blog 
this page, and I suspect that only part of the information that you have 
described in your email linked below has made it into this incubation wiki?

So I suggest:
c. Copy appropriate content from your emails into wiki (or confirm that 
you have already done so)
d. We approve gvsig for graduation.

Thanks for all your effort, I see gvsig as an excellent asset to OSGeo 
and it will be great to see incubation complete.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 14/09/2015 9:39 pm, Alvaro Anguix wrote:
> 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
> structure.
> Respecting (2), about the organization model you have the details here:
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-September/002786.html
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Alvaro
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
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

More information about the Incubator mailing list