On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz>
wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> Jody and I brainstormed GSIP-153 in today's (very small) committee
> meeting. In a nutshell, have you considered a single layer group class with
> many properties, rather than multiple classes of layer group? Jody made a
> nice table and we listed the properties in bullet points. We also discussed
> some naming changes. Please see the meeting notes.
>
I'm quite baffled and disconcerted... some chronology:
- December 15th, initial discussion on the concept.
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Proposing-a-new-layer-group-type-why-make-do-with-4-when-you-can-have-5-td5299963.html
Only feedback from Ben, who agrees on the concept and suggest to write a
proposal. I wait a few days for people to provide feedback to inform the
proposal (to avoid rewriting it), no feedback, time to move on.
- December 19th, proposal in, by Dec 23rd there are more than enough
votes, and one trivial request for name change (no problem there)
Given the lack of objections on both the mail and the proposal I start the
implementation on Dec 21th, the implementation is now basically ready
(still have to debug and fix some kinks):
https://github.com/aaime/geoserver/tree/lg_opaque_container
By a quick glance over the discussion in the other mail it seems that
actually:
- You did not bother reading the first mail, or did not understand it
- You did not bother reading/understanding or discussing the proposal
(you'd not have questions now otherwise)
So what are the +1 you casted on the proposal worth?
The proposal mechanism, when it works, provides several beneficial
guarantees:
- The community has a say on what gets implemented
- The community has insurance that the work is resources and will be
completed
- The implementers knows they won't have to redo the design of their
work from the ground up once the proposal is voted
The community has been given two occasions to discuss and bend the
proposal, and none was exploited. I'll now try to have a look at it, but my
budget is gone in the existing implementation (still only have a bit to
handle review comments). Would it be wrong of me to expect not simply
discussion but also coding and documentation help from those that changed
their mind now?
I'd really urge everybody to think _before_ casting a vote, not after doing
so. If you are unsure, it's also ok to ask for some time to think, just say
so in public.
If this case is an exception, well, that happens, but if it becomes common,
the proposal mechanism is basically dead and done for.
Cheers
Andrea
--
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.
==
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054 Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
*AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003*
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
