MS RFC 10: Joining the Open Source Geospatial Foundation

[Daniel Morissette]

Howard Butler wrote:
> All,
> 
> I would like to put forward RFC 10, which is a proposal for MapServer to 
> decide to actively participate and join the Open Source Geospatial 
> Foundation.  I expect that there will be more official information about 
> the meeting and its outcome shortly, but there has been plenty of weblog 
> activity about the meeting (plus hours worth of IRC logs that give even 
> more detail) [1].
> 
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-10/
> 

Thanks for taking time to put that together Howard.

One of the comments that we may get about this proposal is that we (the 
MapServer project, not just the TSC) cannot decide to join until we know 
clearly what the foundation will look like, how it will operate, what 
its bylaws will be, etc. All we have for now is the spirit of the 
general decisions made in Saturday's meeting (which I'm very comfortable 
with personally).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are two options for 
MapServer:

1- Be one of the founding projects of the foundation. This means making 
our decision to join solely on the spirit of Saturday's meeting and the 
decisions made so far, which includes the understanding that in big part 
the foundation will be defined from the commonalities between the 
founding projects... kind of reverse-engineering the foundation from the 
projects. There is a bit of risk but this gives MapServer a chance to 
influence the direction that the foundation will take, and in the end 
get a foundation that will better suit its needs. Actually, it's an 
opportunity but also a responsibility since the members of the founding 
projects are expected to work together to help define the foundation.

2- Wait and see, and decide to join only once everything about the 
foundation is laid out clearly on paper and we know that it's safe to join.

Well, we should not forget option 3:

3- Never join and continue on our own.


Should the RFC be ammended to clearly state which of #1 or #2 we're 
talking about? I think you meant #1 (that's what I'd like personally), 
but that's not very clear in the RFC.

Another clarification for the RFC: perhaps it should be mentioned 
somewhere that if it joins then MapServer would be expected to move its 
project infrastructure (CVS, website, lists, etc.) to the foundation at 
some point in time.

BTW, kudos to all those who were in Chicago Saturday. I was impressed by 
how much was achieved in a day.

Daniel
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
  Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
  DM Solutions Group              http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------