Adrian Custer wrote: > Hey all, > > used to bribe them to tell us anything else about what happened at that > meeting so I don't know anything about the discussion which occurred. > Regardless, it appears we are free to control our own destiny towards > graduation. > Squeek! We need to read the meeting minuets or talk to cholmes on this one. > Would it make sense for two of the PMC members to be placed in charge of > such a schedule to keep us on track? > It is a bit of a tricky dance to try and schedule an open source project in a top down manner. We should try get some momentum going (on updating headers and signing stuff to show it is possible). > The steps as I see them are as follows. > > > I. Agree on a plan: > ------------------ > The last informal discussion I saw resulted in a general consensus that > everyone present would rather use the OSGeo copyright contribution > agreement to assign copyright to OSGeo rather than work with the FSF. > The latter had been a possibility recently. We really need to form a > common front on this aspect to get essentially everyone on board the > direction we choose. > > A. We need to confirm that we are going this route and address > any residual concerns any of those who are willing to assign > copyright may still have. > I am going to write up the proposal; and the vote can serve as confirmation. > B. We need to decide on how we will treat future contributors. > If we are planning to move SVN to OSGeo, do we grant access to > that SVN only to those who have signed? If not, we need to be > very clear about how a contributor needs to track their > copyright over the files they touch. > Signing something for svn access seems a bit harsh; we have a hard time getting volunteers as it is :-) Perhaps we can ask people to sign when they become a module maintainer or want to work on the core library / plugins /extentions ... svn permissions should let us handle this case? > II. Invite all past contributors to assign copyright: > ---------------------------------------------------- > ... > coordinates. The letter should also explain how to play along: where to > get the form, where to send it, how to know when it has been > countersigned and accepted. > We sent a warning about this one around two years ago. We can send another one when the process starts in earnest. > Since part of the intent of this work is to allow OSGeo to re-license > the code one day, it might be worth mentioning the fact that Java itself > has moved to GPL plus classpath exception and therefore we might need to > follow that move someday. > If you want we can add that as a future consideration to the letter; however I don't want license talk to bog us down (there is enough on our plate right now). > C. We must compose a letter, we must get an authoritative list > of emails of past contributors, send the letter out to all the > past contributors and attempt to get a statement of intent > (will/won't sign) from each so we can know where everyone > stands. > We went through svn history last time and matched names to email addresses. > III. Torture committers to get docs signed, sealed and delivered. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The ultimate threat to miss access to a 'future, better svn' may not be > enough to get our lazy selves to mail the docs. > > D. Form a 'torture committee' able and willing to cause intense > psychological torture, public mockery and general abuse to > achieve our goals. > Weekly emails will be fine; it will help if we have a planned date for the svn mv. > IV. Clean up the headers on trunk: > --------------------------------- > > We can't start this step until we have all signed the copyright > assignment document. Then the question arises how we want to go about > automating this as much as possible. > I think we can start this step; and I don't think we can automate it - as updating these headers is our providence review. > The situation today is that the headers are WRONG. The line that says > (c) PMC is incorrect since that entity does not exist, it cannot hold > copyright. The legal situation today, DESPITE what the headers may say, > is that each contributor of non-trivial changes to any file holds a > joint copyright to that file. The best assumption is that all the > usernames in the svn log are those who have copyright on the file. > Essentially, > svn log FILE | grep '^r[0-9]' > gives the full list of copyright holders, except that for some of those > the copyright will rest with their employers. > Okay if that is what we need to do then that is what we need to do. Perhaps we can sort this out a head of time using a batch process that genrates a file; with the filename followed by each person in the log history? - org.geotools.GeoTools jive, acuster, .....
Really this comes down to the module maintainer being happy with the contents of the review.txt file... > Somehow we need to come up with a strategy and possilby automated > scripts to help us with the cleanup. > > Jody proposed some new headers here: > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Gradudate+from+OSGeo > but I don't think that stuff is right yet. Especially the (c) PMC needs > to be REMOVED since it is WRONG. > Changed the page; anything else please just edit the page (as I may not always catch up on email like today). > F. We need to do a header cleanup sprint, possibly coordinated with the svn > cleanup work. > The other option is coordinate the sprint with a release... but by all means lets start early. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
