MS RFC 10: Joining the Open Source Geospatial Foundation

[Yewondwossen Assefa]

+1 for me.

 I think also that comments/arguments done by Steve/Danie/Frank should 
make it to the mapserver user list explaining the reasoning behind the vote.

 Assefa

Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:

> My position (and UMN's) is that we move swiftly (option #1).  So, with 
> the addition of all the comments Frank, Howard, and Daniel made to the 
> RFC. I vote +1 to get this process in motion.
>
> -Perry
>
> Steve Lime wrote:
>
>> I'm to the point where I think we should be looking at option #1. We
>> begin to loose credibility with #2, and it is important that 
>> MapServer become
>> a strong player in the foundation and that only happens by being amongst
>> the initial members.  The bootstrap board is top notch- I trust those 
>> guys.
>>
>> Plus, look at the others already in. Grass, GDAL, MapBender, 
>> MapBuilder and OSSIM (this suprised me).  I really respect all of 
>> those projects. I am suprised
>> they could just simply join. I think we are taking a very proactive 
>> and open
>> approach- makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> Plus we always have option 3 at our fingertips at any time- the fork.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>  
>>
>>>>> Howard Butler <hobu at IASTATE.EDU> 02/06/06 10:53 AM >>>
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Yes, the RFC was more about scenario #1 than scenario #2.  The RFC 
>> should be amended to reflect this.  Sitting on our hands and waiting 
>> for #2 to come to fruition means a few things in my mind:
>>
>> - Our project's ability to influence the coalescence of OSGeo is 
>> extremely limited.  This may or may not be a big deal.  For example, 
>> if the foundation prescribes some sort of 
>> website/documentation/infrastructure component and this is inflexible 
>> after I've spent all this time on the mapserver website and can't 
>> reuse it in the context of the foundation, I have an issue.  There 
>> may be more things like that.  Or maybe I'm overreacting.
>>
>> - Our project sits in purgatory while we wait.  Software and 
>> development-wise we can continue to move forward.  I don't know that 
>> we can do too much project-wise (website, infrastructure, project 
>> steering committee development, etc).   If we're not participating, 
>> our ability to accommodate any of the uniqueness of the organization 
>> of our project in the foundation becomes very limited.  Some of those 
>> things (like project steering committee) we don't even do now.  If we 
>> were to eventually go into OSGeo, we would want to make sure things 
>> are congruent with that organizational structure so we don't end up 
>> re-doing a bunch of work.  At the risk of having to redo things, we'd 
>> most likely do nothing.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 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.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Please add this stuff to the RFC.  It was kind of alluded to, but not 
>> clearly spelled out.
>>
>> .
>>
>>  
>>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assefa Yewondwossen           
Software Analyst   

Email: assefa at dmsolutions.ca    
http://www.dmsolutions.ca/

Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
Fax:   (613) 565-0925
----------------------------------------------------------------