Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Jody Garnett wrote: >> Another thing that came up in conversation last week was - why be >> involved in OSGEO? After all so far it has mostly been requests for >> work, on some problems we were comfortable ignoring previously... >> >> Here are some of the answers: >> - source of funding for the "grunt work" we have real with (releases, >> user docs), this is the reason I bothered to do the providence review >> - we need to set up ownership on our codebase, seems to just be a >> legal matter we can sort out via a letter from each developer >> - collaboration with other projects, both to cut RnD costs and to >> share in interoperability testing >> - shared marketing and branding, less exciting to us as we are a library >> >> We can see some of these results coming out meeting other communities >> face to face at FOSS4G, the goal will be to get the same kind of >> benefits out of OSGEO involvement. > Jody, > > Note that "source of funding" isn't a sure thing. In the current OSGeo > sponsorship scheme this would devolve to getting GeoTools directed > "project sponsorships" from organizations that depend on it or what to > be supportive. But OSGeo does provide a mechanism to collect and manage > that money if you can find sponsors. Understood Frank,
OSGeo is what we make of it after all (and I am much more comfortable working through a foundation then encouraging say Source Forge paypall as a route. Currently we operate as a venue for RnD, which leaves us lots of leeway for creating new functionality, but not much for day to day operations (other then a dedicated project management committee). > The aspect that you haven't mentioned directly is to encourage adoption > and use of GeoTools by organizations that might have been uncomfortable > with the unclear accountability of the project. Understood, and that is a good point. This is the larger goal that figuring out the legal issues ( code providence review and (c) ) is directed at solving. But currently this process does not have a good "metric"... The two I am waiting for are: - feedback from David Adler, hist company is one with an explicit checklist that could guide our process - feedback from OSGEO incubation process, ongoing Adoption of GeoTools by more organizations would provide a motivation to get releases out on a dependable schedule and so on, something I am tempted to include as an "incubation goal". Because without a release cycle it is impossible to plan around a technology. > The pain around code copyright, and reviewing is aimed at two > things. Helping to > protect those who work on and use the project, and to reduce the > fear, uncertainty and > doubt of possible new adopters. I see we are both making the same point :-) > For me, this additional credibility / comfort was a big objective for me > having GDAL/OGR incubate. I want to drive maximum adoption, and for some > organizations they want to see something more accountable than a guy > in the bush. He He, you are ahead of me - credibility has not been my concern thus far I would like stability, predictability and so on. Basically I need to be the community to be credible to each other before we bother others. > Best regards, Cheers, Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
