MS RFC 10: Joining the Open Source Geospatial Foundation
Daniel Morissette
dmorissette at DMSOLUTIONS.CA
Mon Feb 6 11:23:36 EST 2006
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/
------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the mapserver-dev
mailing list