I would not really recommend that, sorry if this format of email discussion is not working out for decisions.
The only thing I would recommend is that projects joint a software foundation to help make successful open source projects. I would recommend OSGeo incubation projects use or flexibility to graduate in a quick efficient manner. To be blunt I am not recommending LocationTech until I see their first project graduate :) -- Jody Jody Garnett On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Massimiliano Cannata < [email protected]> wrote: > nice, so if I correctly interpret your recommended path would be: > > 1) apply to LocationTech (which is faster then OSGeo incubation) and then > > 2) when passed apply also to become an OSGeo project > > Some FOSS4G projects are GPL... (I think of GRASS for example), what these > project should do as, if I correctly understand, > GPL is not "welcome" at locationtech? Follow the OSGeo incubation only? > > Maxi > > 2014-09-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jody Garnett <[email protected]>: > >> 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 >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > *Massimiliano Cannata* > > Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica > > Responsabile settore Geomatica > > > Istituto scienze della Terra > > Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design > > Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana > > Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio > > Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14 > > Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09 > > [email protected] > > *www.supsi.ch/ist <http://www.supsi.ch/ist>* >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
