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 <tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@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 <tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org> >> > <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org <mailto:tsch...@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 >> > <tsch...@opengeo.org <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org> >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org>> >> > > <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org>>> >> > > > <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org>> >> > <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org> >> <mailto:tsch...@opengeo.org <mailto:tsch...@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@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>> >> > <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>>> >> > > <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>> >> > <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>>>> >> > > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Tim Schaub >> > > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >> > > Expert service straight from the developers. >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Dev mailing list >> > > Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>> >> > <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>>> >> > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tim Schaub >> > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >> > Expert service straight from the developers. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Dev mailing list >> > Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org>> >> > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Tim Schaub >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >> Expert service straight from the developers. >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> Dev@openlayers.org <mailto:Dev@openlayers.org> >> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> > > -- Tim Schaub OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
