Not only is that a great idea Jachym - it is already happening. MarbleGIS works with kde.org and had an easier go of OSGeo incubation as a result. KDE is very strict about headers - so they were in good shape. KDE had some policies to follow, so many of our questions about how the project was run were easy to answer with a hyperlink.
So Marble GIS was able to use their experience with one fountain to have an head start at OSGeo Incubation. -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Jachym Cepicky <[email protected]> wrote: > What about speeding OSGeo incubation in a way, that projects, who made it > through locationtech, would have to work only at the differences between > both incubations, afaik the community aspect and maybe something else, in > order to make it to OSGeo project? It would be more easy for them to make > it through OSGeo incubation, things would be speeding up a bit > > I'm I completely wrong? > > Jachym > > Send from cellphone > > -- > Jachym Cepicky > e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com > URL: http://les-ejk.cz > GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp > > Give your code freedom with PyWPS -http://pywps.wald.intevation.org > On Sep 15, 2014 7:55 AM, "Jody Garnett" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good questions/discussion: >> >> Going to chime in as I enjoy both working with OSGeo incubation and >> LocationTech. I am a couple timezones west of Daniel but sleep is on the >> horizon. >> >> TLDR: I am not 100% positive of either organisation, which is why I am >> trying to make them better. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Massimiliano Cannata < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As you said the final goal is the same: open source Geospatial software >>> affirmation. And this is the best thing I can wish to all of us. >>> >> Agreed, and I was very heartened by aspects of foss4g this year. >> >>> Nevertheless what I just have not clear is: what location teach do >>> differently with respect to osgeo? >>> >> A lot of questions :) The two organisations share the same goals, but >> have different talents with respect to outreach. >> >> I am going to try and do a single Pro/Con for each organisation just so >> you can see how they differ. I suspect this is a better conversation over >> beer or coffee since I cannot tell what kind of differences you are >> interested in? >> >> OSGeo Incubation >> Pro: OSGeo incubation has the advantage of being less formal, and thus >> able to adapt to the needs of the projects in incubation today. This >> message gets lots repeatedly, which makes me a bit sad. I usually pick on >> my own projects, but perhaps the pycsw crew would not mind being used as an >> example. We have an "checklist" item about user / developer interaction, >> with an example provided of user list collaboration around releases. This >> example is dated and does not fit with an amazing aspect of the pycsw story >> - pycsw have great downstream projects fulfilling this role (risk >> mitigation around release based on bug reports, testing, collaboration). >> OSGeo incubation has the flexibility to recognise this value ... and get on >> with life. >> Con: OSGeo incubation has a look but don't touch attitude - we like to >> leave projects as we found them and not disturb the way each projects is >> already functioning. This is great "low impact" approach for when we were >> taking on fully-fored projects like MapServer, MapGuide and PostGIS. What >> could possibly be the drawback? We are not in position to offer much >> guidance to organisations that are new to open source struggling to know >> where to start. >> Contrast: We are great at reviewing project viability to try and protect >> OSGeo users from adopting projects that have gone stale. >> >> LocationTech Incubation >> Pro: LocationTech is a working group in an already established Software >> Foundation. They have a long history of teaching new projects how to do >> OpenSource. Many of the conventions we work with in our open source >> projects (voting +1 to accept a new committer on a project) have been >> automated into a developer portal. This structure can help those new to >> open source feel confidence they are doing it right. >> Cons: The workload associated with checking License/Headers is both >> harder and easier then OSGeo. There are staff to do the checking, but you >> need to submit each thing you depend on - even down to the build tools used >> to compile, build diagrams or generate docs. While I can kind of respect >> this (protecting potential developers from needing to purchase tools) was >> not prepared for the workload. >> Contrast: Eclipse incubation does not say much about if a project is >> stale. >> >> does it somehow overlap with incubation or not? What are the distinctive >>> features? >> >> >> There is an overlap, but differences: >> * A project graduating out of OSGeo ...would have to do a formal IP check >> to graduate out of LocationTech. There is paid staff to do the work, but it >> is still a lot of work to submit all the code. I think there is like a TM >> check and other stuff. Lots of work, with some assistance on offer. >> * A project graduating out of LocationTech ... would have to do >> organisation viability, documentation checks, user/developer collaboration >> and similar. Soft concerns but hard to do. >> >> They also have a similar issue: projects are (quite rightly) more focused >> on the next release and any publicity .. then actually completing >> incubation. >> >>> Personally I wonder why some of the most eminent person of osgeo (like >>> you) decided to work into location teach? Don't misunderstood me, I'm not >>> judging nor criticizing, I'd just like to understand opportunities or >>> aspect or services not found in osgeo and that experts and leaders found >>> there. >>> >> When the talks go up, skip to the end of the LocationTech projects you >> can see leads from several projects answer your question. >> >> For me personally the motivation is the same: foster new projects as the >> best way of fulfilling our OSGeo mandate / LocationTech charter. >> >> For me as uDig project lead: >> a) The uDig project always wanted to join Eclipse: since it is built with >> Eclipse "Rich Client Platform (RCP)" the best way to attract new RCP >> developers is to take uDig closer to where the developers are. >> b) Is in need of a new home as Refractions does not appear active >> >>> Sorry in advance for my eventual ignorance, but I think this would help >>> people better understand the discussion and the future of osgeo. >>> >> Thanks for the questions Maxi. If you want a front row seat you could >> always talk to the OSGeo Board about being the Guest on the LocationTech >> meetings. This position was created help with communication, and I guess >> this email thread indicates a need. >> >> The nice thing is that all these software organisations are here to help >> (OSGeo, Eclipse Foundation, Apache Foundation, Free Software Foundation, >> Linux Foundation). This ability to play well with others is something I >> respect about OSGeo. We are not worried about our projects being hosted on >> GitHub, or Marble GIS working with KDE Foundation. >> >> -- >> Jody >> PS. I wrote a blog post >> <http://www.lisasoft.com/blog/programming-public-osgeo-and-locationtech> of >> some of my culture shock when first starting with LocationTech. I have >> learned a bit since then so take that link with a grain of salt. >> PPS. I volunteered to help with foss4g-na, no idea what I am in for, but >> if you have any ideas/suggestions please send them to me. >> >>> Maxi >>> Il 14-set-2014 17:05 "Daniel Morissette" <[email protected]> ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> FWIW I'm happy to hear that there was such a face to face discussion. I >>>> believe that open communication on the issues will be the best way to >>>> address the fears and find ways to move forward in the best interest of the >>>> overall worldwide community of people, businesses, institutions, etc who >>>> have a common interest in seeing free and open source geospatial software >>>> strive. >>>> >>>> Keep in mind that we all come to this model of software development for >>>> different reasons (business, academic, philosophical, hobby, etc.), but in >>>> the end we're all working towards a similar objective, so there is no fear >>>> to be had, just different means of reaching a common objective, and since >>>> the result of everybody's actions is better free/open source software, >>>> everybody will benefit in the end. >>>> >>>> Not sure if I was able to relay my thoughts properly... maybe I need a >>>> bit more sleep. >>>> >>>> Cheers all >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14-09-14 10:25 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: >>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> as long as I understand it: "some members of the community" are scared >>>>> of LocationTech "taking over" whatever (FOSS4G conference, OSGeo >>>>> projects and community). This can be based on real action, taken on >>>>> either site, unofficial statement, misunderstandings or personal >>>>> dislikes. >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday, we had short (about 2hours) face 2 face discussion with >>>>> Andrew here in PDX (me, Vasile, Jeff and Gerald) and I personally >>>>> believe, that it is not in interest of LocationTech to "crush" OSGeo >>>>> or FOSS4G conference. It was clearly stated, that LocationTech would >>>>> like to contribute to FOSS4G and make it to better conference, >>>>> regarding (again) "some remarks" of "some members of the community" >>>>> (including myself), that the way, FOSS4G is organised, does not >>>>> necessary meet some of the community aspects, we would like to stress. >>>>> I would like to note, that the discussion was very open on both sides, >>>>> still calm and productive. >>>>> >>>>> "To contribute" of course means "to work" and LocationTech is anything >>>>> but volunteer driven organisation. It has been stated, that FOSS4G-NA >>>>> next year will be organised primarily by LocationTech, but OSGeo willl >>>>> be represented clearly and (so to say) loudly. >>>>> >>>>> This could be one of the firsts steps towards closer cooperation >>>>> between LocationTech and OSGeo. >>>>> >>>>> Everybody is aware, that on some points, LocationTech is not that >>>>> good, as OSGeo currently is. OSGeo is certainly failing in other >>>>> things. Looking for ways, how to strengthen common strengths and >>>>> weaken our weaknesses should have "non-zero-sum" effect. >>>>> >>>>> We, as OSGeo shall later evaluate, whether the price for helping us >>>>> LocationTech with conferences (regardless if on regional or global >>>>> level), was too hight or quite ok. In case of disagreement, we shall >>>>> try to find solution for the next time. >>>>> >>>>> In the worst case, we find out, that cooperation is not possible and >>>>> everybody can go it's way than. >>>>> >>>>> I hope, you get my point(s) and that I did not misinterpreted >>>>> anything, what was said. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jachym >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Morissette >>>> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201 >>>> http://www.mapgears.com/ >>>> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
