[OpenLayers-Dev] proposal for GeoExt governance
Tim Schaub
tschaub at opengeo.org
Thu Mar 19 16:06:22 EDT 2009
Hey-
Erik Uzureau wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:28, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org
> <mailto: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."
>
Here's what I think a vote would signify:
"We (OL PSC) are going to require that the GeoExt PSC demonstrate to us
that they are keeping their code free of encumbrances and that the
project is in line with the criteria laid out for OSGeo member projects."
Is that unclear?
I want to keep this discussion going until we have a clear understanding.
Tim
> ..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>
> > <mailto: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>>>
> > > > <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 <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>>>
> > > <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 <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>>
> > <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.
More information about the Dev
mailing list