[OpenLayers-Dev] proposal for GeoExt governance
Tim Schaub
tschaub at opengeo.org
Thu Mar 19 19:50:05 EDT 2009
Erik and I had a ~2hr discussion on this today. I think we managed to
clear up all misunderstanding. I don't have the energy to summarize
today, but I'll try to pick this up tomorrow.
Tim
Tim Schaub wrote:
> 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