[Proj] PROJ PSC

[Huw James]

Please define the PSC and define its rules of membership and its rules of
operation.

If you wish to cull the e-mail list of dead, missing or plain lost interest
members there are less draconian measures.

I'm a member of this list to keep up with changes in Projections and Datums
in the PROG.4 code base.I'm not very interested in long drawn out
discussions on coding style that are not driven by problems and
requirements. A small part of the code base seems to generate most of the
problems which indicates to me that the design of this part is not clean
and does not foresee and avoid maintenance problems.

If you wish I'm happy to split off the code and development and then
maintain a system that is open to all and their very diverse needs.

I hope that is clear to all, if you cannot get along with your proposed
"PSC" outsiders it seems that you are unsuitable to be responsible for an
open system. Where is Mr. Troxell?

best wishes,

Huw James

cell:  281-318-8027

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Kristian Evers <kreve at sdfe.dk> wrote:

> I am also on board with this. Certainly makes more sense than the current
> setup.
> Using the GDAL/MapServer PSC rules is a good idea - we don’t need to
> reinvent
> the wheel.
>
> Forming a PROJ PSC is effectively breaking out of MetaCRS. The MetaCRS PSC
> guidelines [0] does not cover that topic but a vote seems to be in order.
> To ensure
> the formalities are kept. This would in all likelihood be the last vote
> for the MetaCRS
> PCS.
>
> /Kristian
>
> [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/metacrs/wiki/PSCGuidelines
>
>
> On 31 May 2018, at 22:10, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com> wrote:
>
> On jeudi 31 mai 2018 15:00:29 CEST Howard Butler wrote:
>
> All,
>
> In the interest of self determination, I propose that PROJ form a PSC
> with the following membership:
>
>
> +1 (of course voting in a bootstrapping phase is a bit tricky :-) )
>
> Actually the GDAL PSC rules are in
> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc
>
> And they are exactly the same as the MapServer ones in
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html
>
> Those governance rules have proved to be robust for the 2 projects (I
> believe
> a few others have taken inspiration from them too) for more than 10 years
> now.
>
> Even
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20180531/cec3d8c8/attachment.html>