[Incubator] quick update / feedback prior to osgeo meeting

Tom Kralidis tomkralidis at gmail.com
Mon Feb 15 17:42:35 PST 2016

Hi all: short update from PyWPS:

- we have ironed out much of the confusion between PyWPS 3 and 4
into a single codebase with a clean organization between branches/master [1].
This includes a license change (from GPL to MIT) between versions 3 and 4 (note
version 4 is a clean rewrite/not derived)
- we have started documenting dev processes and infrastructure [2][3] in
order to improve consistency within the project
- we have beefed up project marketing (finally acquiring the pywps.org domain,
updates on Nabble, OpenHub, OSGeo Planet, etc.) [4]
- we have stood up a demo server on http://demo.pywps.org [5] which will serve
instances in support of OGC compliance and reference implementations

Next steps:
- include PyWPS in OSGeo Live
- continue Incubation checklist
- perform provenance review against master


[1] https://github.com/geopython/PyWPS
[2] https://github.com/geopython/pywps/wiki/TechnicalInfrastructure
[3] https://github.com/geopython/pywps/wiki/Templates
[4] https://github.com/geopython/pywps/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22OSGeo+Incubation%22
[5] https://github.com/geopython/pywps/issues/73

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Landon Blake
<sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just looked over the information provided by Manuel. It looks like the
> code provenance review and review of libraries is complete. The only minor
> issues are:
> - The S6 library by NASA (and others) is used by one module. This library is
> publicly available, but wasn't officially released under an open source
> license.
> - The project may switch from the GPL to Apache software license at some
> point in the near future.
> - We don't have Committer Responsibilities Guidelines in place just yet.
> I don't think either of the first 2 items should postpone incubation, but
> I'm not an expert.
> What do you other committee members think? Does anyone see another lose end
> that I'm missing?
> Let me know what I need to tie up so we can get OTB over the finish line. :]
> Manuel: What is our timeline for the creation of Committer Responsibilities
> Guidelines?
> Landon
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Manuel Grizonnet <manuel.grizonnet at cnes.fr>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> as a member of the orfeo team, I just want to do an update regarding the
>> OTB incubation process (I've just checked and updated the application this
>> morning):
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OTB_Incubation_Application
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OTB_Code_Provenance_Review
>> I've especially complete information regarding Foundation membership
>> (complete IMO) and the code copyright review.
>> Long story short, no blocking (or unknown) issues regarding license of
>> third party and copyrights. Since the end of 2015, OTB is in the process to
>> be uploaded to Debian for the first time and has entered the "NEW queue".
>> I've added more information in the application about included libraries and
>> copyright management.
>> Note that there are also initiatives of the community to investigate the
>> feasibility to move OTB from GPL to an Apache license (see
>> https://www.orfeo-toolbox.org/blog/page/6/?cat=1). If it happens it will be
>> discus and done following the decision making process set up in 2015
>> (inspired by other osgeo projects like gdal, qgis...) but I am not sure that
>> it should be "correlate" with the osgeo incubation process.
>> Hope that we will be able to make some progress this year regarding this.
>> Thanks again to Landon for his mentoring and pushing forward otb
>> application.
>> Best regards,
>> Manuel
>> Le 03/02/2016 17:44, Landon Blake a écrit :
>>> I'm going to see if I can push the OTB boys over the finish line this
>>> year. I've got some licensing issues I need to e-mail the committee
>>> about. I'll try to do that this week.
>>> I've also got a project for an SLD editor that reached out to me about
>>> OSGeo Labs. I'll try to review what I was sent and forward it to the
>>> committee this week as well. Then we will have to have a conversation
>>> about what we actually want Incubation Labs to be. :]
>>> Landon
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     We are running pretty low volume on the incubation list here, I am
>>>     heading into the OSGeo board meeting and would like to highlight any
>>>     feedback from our projects in incubation.
>>>     We have actually had a fairly successful year here, but I would
>>>     still like to consider kicking it up a notch in terms of graduating
>>>     projects and recruiting new projects into the foundation.
>>>     --
>>>     Jody Garnett
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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

More information about the Incubator mailing list