[OpenLayers-Dev] proposal for GeoExt governance
Erik Uzureau
euzuro at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 15:27:10 EDT 2009
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:28, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:
> Hey-
>
> Erik Uzureau wrote:
> > First off, let me reiterate that I'm not in any way against OL PSC
> > taking on this
> > role, nor do I have any doubt of anyone's ability to deal with these
> > responsibilities.
> >
> > My objection is purely theoretical (and perhaps incredibly ill-worded,
> > sorry :-)
> >
> > What I'm trying to get at is the sense of "responsibility" in this whole
> > process.
> >
> > Perhaps I am leaping from the wrong foot, but my assumption here is
> > that, on the one hand, the idea of assigning "governance" to the OL PSC
> > is that it's a way of having a group of people who've already been
> > there, done that look after and help out the new guy... but on the other
> > hand, it's also a way for OSGEO to delegate the responsibility for
> > making sure that the new guy follows all the rules. Yes?
> >
> > It's the second case that to me seems like it's in jeopardy when the new
> > guys happen to also be the governors. It's like allowing employees to
> > sign off on their own expense reports.... it's essentially saying "we
> > have complete trust in him/her".... and if that's the case, then what's
> > the use of siging off at all?
> >
>
> You could also say that the "new guys" are not really new. They are the
> same ones that OSGeo (essentially) entrusts with the governance of
> OpenLayers.
>
> The reason to involve the OpenLayers PSC is that OpenLayers has gone
> through incubation. The project and the processes adopted by the PSC
> have been vetted by OSGeo. GeoExt is unknown to OSGeo.
I must really be misunderstanding or not doing a good job of expressing what
I'm trying to say here, because I don't see how this response address
anything
that I've been trying to say this whole thread.
I understand that OL's project and process have been vetted and that
GeoExt's
project and process have not.
What I don't understand is what in the world an OL vote is going to signify
other
than "we think the GeoExt guys know what they are doing and will follow the
rules."
..which to me is a vote of confidence, not a contract of governance. The
latter
being the agreement to a relationship in which one group takes on
responsibility
for monitoring another (which we're agreed is not the case since the
monitors
and the monitorees are the same people)
Anyways, I'm sure there's only good intentions here so no need to argue. I
am,
however, very curious to see the final wording of this vote... :-)
>
>
> Tim
>
> > If GeoExt gets a really great contribution but can't get a CLA for it --
> > for whatever reason -- then what is to stop their "governors" on the OL
> > PSC from glossing over that detail and allowing the patch to go in
> > anyways? Why require governers at all? Maybe we add a clause that says
> > "Any project led by PSC members of an official OSGEO project are exempt
> > from enlisting another project for governance." Maybe that is
> > essentially what everyone wants?
> >
> > Again, please don't interpret this as a character assault on any of the
> > proposed double-PSC members. I personally trust all of you and have
> > doubt that you would "do the right thing" in this situation.... which is
> > to say you would unquestionably have my vote on this measure. I'm just
> > surprised that OSGEO policy would allow this sort of thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 00:47, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org
> > <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hey-
> >
> > Erik Uzureau wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:33, Tim Schaub wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey-
> > >
> > > Erik Uzureau wrote:
> > > > So from this mail and reading the two links... it sounds
> > like the
> > > impact
> > > > for OL PSC
> > > > would be that we must make sure that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) GeoExt has a OSGeo-friendly license (and doesn't change
> it)
> > > > 2) All contributors to GeoExt project have signed CLA
> > > > 3) GeoExt remains Geo-related.
> > > >
> > > > Seems like (1) and (3) are essentially a one-time deal.
> > (2), however,
> > > > would imply someone from OL PSC monitoring all GeoExt
> commits
> > > > and double-checking to see that CLAs are on file for the
> > committer
> > > > or in the event that the committer is merely acting as a
> > reviewer,
> > > > then for the originator of the patch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response Erik. I think you've described the
> > practical
> > > implications well.
> > >
> > > > None of this seems particularly difficult or time
> consuming.
> > > >
> > > > My immediate question, though, is "can a member of the OL
> PSC
> > > > act in any of these roles if they are also a member of the
> > GeoExt
> > > > PSC (or general community)?"
> > >
> > > Sure. This is what I was imagining.
> > >
> > >
> > > Really? I'd maybe put that one to the good people at OSGEO before
> > > declaring a victory. I don't wanna be a sourpuss, but to me this
> has
> > > hints of some sort of wierd rotary-clubesque golden parachuting.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, really.
> >
> > > I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but even barring the above
> > > conflict-of-interest issue, there just doesn't seem to be any
> sense
> > > of *real* responsibility happenning at any stage of this game,
> does
> > > there?
> >
> > I'm curious what sort of conflict of interest you see. Eric Lemoine
> and
> > I serve on project steering committees for both OpenLayers and
> GeoExt.
> > My interests in both capacities are very much aligned. My
> > responsibilities on the OL PSC are to make sure that project
> continues
> > to flourish and that it continues to meet the criteria of an OSGeo
> > member project. As a member of the GeoExt PSC, I am interested in
> > seeing that project grow into a candidate for OSGeo membership. I
> > imagine the same is true for Eric.
> >
> > The idea for proposing that the OpenLayers PSC assist in the
> governance
> > of GeoExt was suggested by Frank Warmerdam (copied here) when we
> asked
> > for advice on assigning copyright for the GeoExt codebase to OSGeo.
> >
> > I am comfortable assuming the responsibilities of a PSC member for
> both
> > projects. Does anyone else see a conflict here? To me it seems like
> a
> > very sensible way for the OpenLayers PSC to be able to accept the
> role
> > of assisting in GeoExt governance. (If the OpenLayers PSC had no
> > relation to the GeoExt PSC, I imagine it would be harder to accept
> this
> > responsibility.)
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Start of thread:
> > http://n2.nabble.com/proposal-for-GeoExt-governance-td2477185.html
> >
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Governance in this case is largely about asking for evidence
> that
> > > guidelines are being met.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If the answer is "yes", and either Tim or Eric (who I know
> > are both
> > > > involved in GeoExt) would like to take on the
> > responsibilities, then
> > > > I don't see any reason for the OL PSC *not* to approve
> this.
> > > >
> > > > If the answer is "no", then a suitable chaperone among the
> > uninvolved
> > > > on the OL PSC will have to step up.
> > > >
> > > > Are there any side effects to this that are not being
> listed
> > > here? I mean,
> > > > whether the answer to my above question is "yes" or "no",
> it
> > > doesn't seem
> > > > like OL PSC really has anything to *lose* either way....
> > maybe I'm
> > > > missing something?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think there are implications that you are missing.
> > If there is
> > > no more discussion, I'll ask for a vote tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 23:54, Tim Schaub
> > <tschaub at opengeo.org <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>
> > > <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>>
> > > > <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>
> > <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org <mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>>>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey-
> > > >
> > > > GeoExt is a project that aims to provide an Ext based
> > toolkit for
> > > > developing applications with OpenLayers. The library
> will
> > > extend Ext
> > > > widgets and data management classes with mapping
> > > functionality from
> > > > OpenLayers.
> > > >
> > > > The GeoExt project steering committee and existing
> > users and
> > > developers
> > > > are interested in assigning copyright for the GeoExt
> code
> > > base to the
> > > > OSGeo foundation. For OSGeo to accept copyright, it
> > would be
> > > ideal if
> > > > an existing OSGeo project could participate in the
> > governance
> > > of the
> > > > GeoExt project.
> > > >
> > > > Our hope (as the GeoExt PSC) is that the OpenLayers
> > PSC would
> > > accept
> > > > this responsibility. Exactly what "participate in the
> > > governance" means
> > > > is a little hard to nail down. I've put together a
> > proposal
> > > with a bit
> > > > more specific language:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.geoext.org/trac/geoext/wiki/governance
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to open discussion on this proposal and get a
> > vote
> > > from the
> > > > OpenLayers PSC some time next week.
> > > >
> > > > What this means for the OpenLayers PSC:
> > > >
> > > > The OpenLayers PSC requires that the GeoExt PSC
> provides
> > > evidence that
> > > > GeoExt is following the criteria for becoming an OSGeo
> > member
> > > project
> > > > (as far as I can tell, this is best described here
> > > > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs#Criteria).
> > > >
> > > > In practice, this will mean that the OpenLayers PSC
> will
> > > request that
> > > > the GeoExt PSC provide information on contributors and
> > signed
> > > > contributor license agreements, and that the GeoExt PSC
> > > maintains the
> > > > "geospatial" nature of the project.
> > > >
> > > > Questions and feedback welcome.
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tim Schaub
> > > > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> > > > Expert service straight from the developers.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dev mailing list
> > > > Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
> > <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>>
> > > <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
> > <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>>>
> > > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tim Schaub
> > > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> > > Expert service straight from the developers.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dev mailing list
> > > Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
> > <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>>
> > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Schaub
> > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> > Expert service straight from the developers.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
> > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> Expert service straight from the developers.
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/openlayers-dev/attachments/20090319/0c8f7452/attachment.html
More information about the Dev
mailing list