[pygeoapi] PSC vote: RFC7: Data validation for transactions

[Francesco Bartoli]

+1

Francesco
Il 11 ago 2026, 13:02 +0200, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>, ha scritto:
> Hi all: updated sequence with update to RFC6:
>
> - amend RFC6 to be only for plugin context (noting that we reset the voting)
> - approve/merge RFC7 and its associated PR
> - open a PR to only remove pydantic (does not need an RFC)
> - update RFC6 PR accordingly
>
> Thanks
>
> ..Tom
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:45 AM Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Francesco: thanks for the info. I would have preferred that RFC6
> > focused only on the plugin context discussion. I would suggest the
> > following then in sequence:
> >
> > - declare RFC6 closed/not planned
> > - approve/merge RFC7 and its associated PR
> > - open a PR to only remove pydantic (does not need an RFC)
> > - open RFC8 and associated PR to propose a plugin context
> >
> > Does this make sense? I think this is the most sensible path forward
> > to ensure stability.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > ..Tom
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:27 AM Francesco Bartoli <xbartolone at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > before moving forward with this can we clarify how you would like to coordinate with RFC 6 which had already got three +1 with no other comments and has somehow some overlaps with the data validation design?
> > > >
> > > > If I remember well what we discussed in one of our last meetings the plan was:
> > > > 1. Keep RFC6’s description only for the introduction of a plugin context without any relation with pydantic’s removal and moving forward with the approval with the missing two votes
> > > > 2. split PR https://github.com/geopython/pygeoapi/pull/2307 into two and move the plugin context implementation to a new PR that would close RFC 6
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the RFC7 implementation I will leave some comments directly in the PR.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Francesco
> > > > On 10 Aug 2026 at 14:53 +0200, Jorge S. Mendes de Jesus via pygeoapi <pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org>, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On 8/10/26 12:20 PM, Just van den Broecke via pygeoapi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On 07/08/2026 13:20, Tom Kralidis via pygeoapi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Hi all: FYI per subject, putting RFC7 [1] to PSC vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will start with my +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://pygeoapi.io/development/rfc/7
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > pygeoapi mailing list
> > > > > > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > pygeoapi mailing list
> > > > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > pygeoapi mailing list
> > > > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pygeoapi/attachments/20260819/00ea6c4d/attachment-0001.htm>