Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

Hi Niels,
that's excellent, then I guess it's time to make the PRs moving the modules
up.

Cheers
Andrea

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:31 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hello Jody,
>
> Timothy and I worked on this project together for the same organisation
> (DOV); I believe they are the only ones who own the copyrights on the code.
>
> The problem has been completely resolved now; DOV has signed and submitted
> the CLA for the modules that were contributed to geoserver.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 11/05/2022 01:44, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> Niels the trouble is one of the contributors does not have a CLA on file
> with OSGeo. We need to look up this individuals name so we can stop being
> vague on this topic.
>
> @author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com
>
> So if you want you can update the headers to say (based on Timothy's
> linked in profile):
>
>- (c) OSGeo and others
>
>
>- (c) OSGeo and Geo Solutions; or
>- (c) OSGeo and  Department of RWO; or
>- (c) OSGeo and  Department of DOV
>
>
> Thank you for your patience on this topic; I want to be clear as others
> trying to figure this out the future can learn from this common example.
>
> So two options:
> a) the code was written by you (does not seem correct), and you have
> signed an OSGeo CLA (true), we bring it is as an extension like normal
> b) the code was written by you and Timothy (or his employer, or on behalf
> of a customer), we update the header to say "(c) OSGeo and others" and
> include a LICENSE.md and NOTICE.md file in the extension folder
>
> Aside I think you intended to link to
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-212 and
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-211
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On May 10, 2022 at 11:56:28 AM, Niels Charlier  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>> "found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we
>> have no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that might
>> be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. So
>> the module needs to be labelled and isolated.
>>
>> Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section as
>> well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation
>>
>> So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations:
>>
>> - "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly
>> identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the module, and
>> in the module release zip package":
>>
>> So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license involved.
>>
>> - The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated to
>> indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation.
>>
>> But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was explicitly
>> allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver headers. There
>> was never any other release of the code than this one.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>

-- 

Regards,

Andrea Aime

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions Group
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272

mob:   +39  333 8128928

https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/

http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---

Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE
2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si
precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo
contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è
riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il
messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra
operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia.

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

 That is great, indeed an ideal outcome, thank you for resolving this Niels.
--
Jody Garnett


On May 16, 2022 at 5:31:22 AM, Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hello Jody,
>
> Timothy and I worked on this project together for the same organisation
> (DOV); I believe they are the only ones who own the copyrights on the code.
>
> The problem has been completely resolved now; DOV has signed and submitted
> the CLA for the modules that were contributed to geoserver.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 11/05/2022 01:44, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> Niels the trouble is one of the contributors does not have a CLA on file
> with OSGeo. We need to look up this individuals name so we can stop being
> vague on this topic.
>
> @author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com
>
> So if you want you can update the headers to say (based on Timothy's
> linked in profile):
>
>- (c) OSGeo and others
>
>
>- (c) OSGeo and Geo Solutions; or
>- (c) OSGeo and  Department of RWO; or
>- (c) OSGeo and  Department of DOV
>
>
> Thank you for your patience on this topic; I want to be clear as others
> trying to figure this out the future can learn from this common example.
>
> So two options:
> a) the code was written by you (does not seem correct), and you have
> signed an OSGeo CLA (true), we bring it is as an extension like normal
> b) the code was written by you and Timothy (or his employer, or on behalf
> of a customer), we update the header to say "(c) OSGeo and others" and
> include a LICENSE.md and NOTICE.md file in the extension folder
>
> Aside I think you intended to link to
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-212 and
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-211
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On May 10, 2022 at 11:56:28 AM, Niels Charlier  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>> "found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we
>> have no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that might
>> be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. So
>> the module needs to be labelled and isolated.
>>
>> Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section as
>> well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation
>>
>> So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations:
>>
>> - "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly
>> identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the module, and
>> in the module release zip package":
>>
>> So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license involved.
>>
>> - The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated to
>> indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation.
>>
>> But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was explicitly
>> allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver headers. There
>> was never any other release of the code than this one.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hello Jody,

Timothy and I worked on this project together for the same organisation 
(DOV); I believe they are the only ones who own the copyrights on the code.


The problem has been completely resolved now; DOV has signed and 
submitted the CLA for the modules that were contributed to geoserver.


Kind Regards

Niels

On 11/05/2022 01:44, Jody Garnett wrote:
Niels the trouble is one of the contributors does not have a CLA on 
file with OSGeo. We need to look up this individuals name so we can 
stop being vague on this topic.


@author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com

So if you want you can update the headers to say (based on Timothy's 
linked in profile):


  * (c) OSGeo and others

  * (c) OSGeo and Geo Solutions; or
  * (c) OSGeo and  Department of RWO; or
  * (c) OSGeo and  Department of DOV


Thank you for your patience on this topic; I want to be clear as 
others trying to figure this out the future can learn from this common 
example.


So two options:
a) the code was written by you (does not seem correct), and you have 
signed an OSGeo CLA (true), we bring it is as an extension like normal
b) the code was written by you and Timothy (or his employer, or on 
behalf of a customer), we update the header to say "(c) OSGeo and 
others" and include a LICENSE.md and NOTICE.md file in the extension 
folder


Aside I think you intended to link to 
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-212 and 
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-211

--
Jody Garnett


On May 10, 2022 at 11:56:28 AM, Niels Charlier  wrote:



On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote:
"found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which 
we have no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code 
that might
be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later 
stage. So the module needs to be labelled and isolated.


Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal 
section as well: 
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation



So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations:

- "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly 
identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the 
module, and in the module release zip package":


So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license 
involved.


- The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated 
to indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation.


But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was 
explicitly allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver 
headers. There was never any other release of the code than this one.


Regards

Niels
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

 Niels the trouble is one of the contributors does not have a CLA on file
with OSGeo. We need to look up this individuals name so we can stop being
vague on this topic.

@author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com

So if you want you can update the headers to say (based on Timothy's linked
in profile):

   - (c) OSGeo and others


   - (c) OSGeo and Geo Solutions; or
   - (c) OSGeo and  Department of RWO; or
   - (c) OSGeo and  Department of DOV


Thank you for your patience on this topic; I want to be clear as others
trying to figure this out the future can learn from this common example.

So two options:
a) the code was written by you (does not seem correct), and you have signed
an OSGeo CLA (true), we bring it is as an extension like normal
b) the code was written by you and Timothy (or his employer, or on behalf
of a customer), we update the header to say "(c) OSGeo and others" and
include a LICENSE.md and NOTICE.md file in the extension folder

Aside I think you intended to link to
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-212 and
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-211
--
Jody Garnett


On May 10, 2022 at 11:56:28 AM, Niels Charlier  wrote:

>
> On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
> "found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we have
> no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that might
> be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. So
> the module needs to be labelled and isolated.
>
> Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section as
> well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation
>
> So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations:
>
> - "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly
> identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the module, and
> in the module release zip package":
>
> So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license involved.
>
> - The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated to
> indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation.
>
> But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was explicitly
> allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver headers. There
> was never any other release of the code than this one.
>
> Regards
>
> Niels
>
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote:
"found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we 
have no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that 
might
be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. 
So the module needs to be labelled and isolated.


Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section 
as well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation



So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations:

- "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly 
identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the module, 
and in the module release zip package":


So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license involved.

- The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated to 
indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation.


But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was explicitly 
allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver headers. There 
was never any other release of the code than this one.


Regards

Niels
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 9:16 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hello Andrea,
>
> Indeed, he contributed as part of the same project. I don't know if he
> signed, I could check but I understand we need to get the organization to
> sign anyway, does it then still matter if they do?
>
> About the "found code". I'm not sure if/how it applies, it is not that the
> code was released under a different license, it does not have any other
> headers then the osgeo ones. What would we need to do if we used that
> option?
>
"found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we have
no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that might
be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. So
the module needs to be labelled and isolated.

Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section as
well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation

Cheers
Andrea

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions Group
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272

mob:   +39  333 8128928

https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/

http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---

Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE
2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si
precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo
contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è
riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il
messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra
operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia.

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

  <mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
    *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals:
    promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient
votes (three +1, no -1), but GSIP-312 doesn't
(no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else
still want to add a vote?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA
question; if you did the work on behalf of
a particular government department and had
their permission/authority to donate to
OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
really interested in being careful you
could ask the manager (whoever paid you or
authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate
contributor license

<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
and name the body of the work (metadata
and csw-iso) as the contributed work in
"Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the
copyright owner or legal entity
authorized by the copyright owner that
is making this Agreement with the
Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall
mean the copyright owner or legal
entity authorized by the copyright
owner that is making this Agreement
with the Foundation.

So a government should be able to sign it.

--

Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels
Charlier via Geoserver-devel
 wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to
promote community modules "metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage,
users, are all okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though:
the metadata module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part
of a contract particular
government department. I believe they
technically have copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would
be required though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel



-- 


Regards,

Andrea Aime

==GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us
<http://bit.ly/gs-services-us>for more
information.==Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolfTechnical Lead

GeoSolutions Groupphone: +39 0584 962313

fax:     +39 0584 1660272

mob:   +39  333 8128928


https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/
<https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/>

http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
<http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it>

  

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

Hi Niels,
there is a fair number of classes in the metadata module reporting another
author as well:

src/main/java/org/geoserver/metadata/data/dto/AttributeConfiguration.java:
* @author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com

We don't know how he is. Did he sign a CLA? Did the organization employing
him?
If not, we can still proceed using the GSIP for "found code" I cited
previously:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186

Cheers
Andrea



On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 7:49 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hi Jody, it was written by me who signed the CLA.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 25/04/2022 18:27, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> If the customer is willing to sign the code contribution thing, which
> provides a section b to list the software being contributed to osgeo that
> is the most clear thing.
>
> This code was always developed in the shared repo by folks that have
> signed the CLA? Or is their code that was copied on written by others …
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The code is not released under a different license. I contributed it
>> under the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is necessary for
>> the organization who paid for the work to sign the (corporate) CLA too. I
>> thought Jody suggested this was not strictly necessary if I got the
>> permission to contribute, perhaps he can clarify?
>>
>> The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can actually
>> sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the geoserver license.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>> On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I just remembered this one:
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186
>>
>> This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the
>> extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the community module
>> level, GSR).
>> Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:
>>
>>> I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you should be
>>> good"). perhaps I misunderstood?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Niels
>>> On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>>
>>> That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We
>>> can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit
>>> has not been addressed. This is a blocker.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime <
>>> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>> let's see what the rules say:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>>>>
>>>> In particular:
>>>>
>>>> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast
>>>> their vote.
>>>> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>>>>
>>>> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
>>>> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
>>>> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
>>>> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>>>>
>>>> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
>>>> believe both proposals have passed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>>>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>>>>> are accepted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>>>>> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
>>>>> 
>>>>>

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

Check out the website repo and make a change to the _layout

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver.github.io/blob/main/_layouts/release_220.html

We will need a new release_221.html file soon so you can start with that
one.

Also
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver.github.io/blob/main/_layouts/nightly.html

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:21 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For a community module promotion there is a step:
>
> "Updating the website template to make the extension available."
>
> Is this meant to add a link on this page:
>
> https://geoserver.org/release/2.20.4/
>
> And where does one modify this page?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 25/04/2022 18:27, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> If the customer is willing to sign the code contribution thing, which
> provides a section b to list the software being contributed to osgeo that
> is the most clear thing.
>
> This code was always developed in the shared repo by folks that have
> signed the CLA? Or is their code that was copied on written by others …
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The code is not released under a different license. I contributed it
>> under the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is necessary for
>> the organization who paid for the work to sign the (corporate) CLA too. I
>> thought Jody suggested this was not strictly necessary if I got the
>> permission to contribute, perhaps he can clarify?
>>
>> The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can actually
>> sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the geoserver license.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>> On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I just remembered this one:
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186
>>
>> This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the
>> extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the community module
>> level, GSR).
>> Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:
>>
>>> I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you should be
>>> good"). perhaps I misunderstood?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Niels
>>> On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>>
>>> That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We
>>> can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit
>>> has not been addressed. This is a blocker.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime <
>>> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>> let's see what the rules say:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>>>>
>>>> In particular:
>>>>
>>>> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast
>>>> their vote.
>>>> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>>>>
>>>> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
>>>> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
>>>> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
>>>> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>>>>
>>>> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
>>>> believe both proposals have passed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>>>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>>>>> are accepted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>&

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hi,

For a community module promotion there is a step:

"Updating the website template to make the extension available."

Is this meant to add a link on this page:

https://geoserver.org/release/2.20.4/

And where does one modify this page?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 25/04/2022 18:27, Jody Garnett wrote:
If the customer is willing to sign the code contribution thing, which 
provides a section b to list the software being contributed to osgeo 
that is the most clear thing.


This code was always developed in the shared repo by folks that have 
signed the CLA? Or is their code that was copied on written by others …


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:

Hi,

The code is not released under a different license. I contributed
it under the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is
necessary for the organization who paid for the work to sign the
(corporate) CLA too. I thought Jody suggested this was not
strictly necessary if I got the permission to contribute, perhaps
he can clarify?

The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can
actually sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the
geoserver license.

Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:

Ah, I just remembered this one:

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186

This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the
extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the
community module level, GSR).
Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.

Cheers
Andrea


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier 
wrote:

I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen
("you should be good"). perhaps I misunderstood?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:

That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is
valid. We can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit
has not been addressed. This is a blocker.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime
 wrote:

Hi Niels,
let's see what the rules say:


https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip

In particular:

Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC
members have cast their vote.
* At the end of ten days time any remaining votes
are assumed to be +0.

A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
* at least 30% “+1” votes, and
* no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes
has been addressed and any “-1” voters have changed
their votes)

Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in
the GSIPs) I believe both proposals have passed.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via
Geoserver-devel 
wrote:

Thank you, Jukka!


Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and
that both proposals are accepted?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:


+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
*Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett

<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
    *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote
    metadata and csw-iso to extensions

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes
(three +1, no -1), but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but
only two +1). Does anyone else still want to add a
vote?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question;
if you did the work on behalf of a particular
government department and had their
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then
you should be good. If you are really
interested in being careful you could ask the
manager (whoever paid you or authorized the
work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
   

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hi Jody, it was written by me who signed the CLA.

Kind Regards

Niels

On 25/04/2022 18:27, Jody Garnett wrote:
If the customer is willing to sign the code contribution thing, which 
provides a section b to list the software being contributed to osgeo 
that is the most clear thing.


This code was always developed in the shared repo by folks that have 
signed the CLA? Or is their code that was copied on written by others …


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:

Hi,

The code is not released under a different license. I contributed
it under the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is
necessary for the organization who paid for the work to sign the
(corporate) CLA too. I thought Jody suggested this was not
strictly necessary if I got the permission to contribute, perhaps
he can clarify?

The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can
actually sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the
geoserver license.

Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:

Ah, I just remembered this one:

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186

This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the
extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the
community module level, GSR).
Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.

Cheers
Andrea


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier 
wrote:

I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen
("you should be good"). perhaps I misunderstood?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:

That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is
valid. We can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit
has not been addressed. This is a blocker.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime
 wrote:

Hi Niels,
let's see what the rules say:


https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip

In particular:

Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC
members have cast their vote.
* At the end of ten days time any remaining votes
are assumed to be +0.

A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
* at least 30% “+1” votes, and
* no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes
has been addressed and any “-1” voters have changed
their votes)

Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in
the GSIPs) I believe both proposals have passed.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via
Geoserver-devel 
wrote:

Thank you, Jukka!


Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and
that both proposals are accepted?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:


+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
*Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett

<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
    *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote
        metadata and csw-iso to extensions

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes
(three +1, no -1), but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but
only two +1). Does anyone else still want to add a
vote?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question;
if you did the work on behalf of a particular
government department and had their
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then
you should be good. If you are really
interested in being careful you could ask the
manager (whoever paid you or authorized the
work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license

<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
and name the body of the work (metadata and
c

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

If the customer is willing to sign the code contribution thing, which
provides a section b to list the software being contributed to osgeo that
is the most clear thing.

This code was always developed in the shared repo by folks that have signed
the CLA? Or is their code that was copied on written by others …

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The code is not released under a different license. I contributed it under
> the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is necessary for the
> organization who paid for the work to sign the (corporate) CLA too. I
> thought Jody suggested this was not strictly necessary if I got the
> permission to contribute, perhaps he can clarify?
>
> The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can actually
> sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the geoserver license.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
> Ah, I just remembered this one:
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186
>
> This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the
> extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the community module
> level, GSR).
> Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:
>
>> I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you should be
>> good"). perhaps I misunderstood?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>> On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>> That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We can't
>> have the metadata module if the CLA bit
>> has not been addressed. This is a blocker.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime <
>> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Niels,
>>> let's see what the rules say:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>>>
>>> In particular:
>>>
>>> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast
>>> their vote.
>>> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>>>
>>> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
>>> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
>>> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
>>> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>>>
>>> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
>>> believe both proposals have passed.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>>>> are accepted?
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>> Niels
>>>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>>>> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
>>>> 
>>>> *Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
>>>> 
>>>> *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso
>>>> to extensions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1),
>>>> but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want
>>>> to add a vote?
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>> Niels
>>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Niels!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
>>>> behalf of a particular government department and had their
>>>> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
>>>> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
>>>> you or authorized the work) to si

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hi,

The code is not released under a different license. I contributed it 
under the CLA, which I signed. The question is only if it is necessary 
for the organization who paid for the work to sign the (corporate) CLA 
too. I thought Jody suggested this was not strictly necessary if I got 
the permission to contribute, perhaps he can clarify?


The issue is simply a matter of red tape, about who should/can actually 
sign it; not an unwillingness to contribute under the geoserver license.


Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 10:25, Andrea Aime wrote:

Ah, I just remembered this one:

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186

This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the 
extension level (so far I believe we have only one at the community 
module level, GSR).

Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.

Cheers
Andrea


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:

I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you
should be good"). perhaps I misunderstood?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:

That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid.
We can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit
has not been addressed. This is a blocker.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime
 wrote:

Hi Niels,
let's see what the rules say:


https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip

In particular:

Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members
have cast their vote.
* At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are
assumed to be +0.

A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
* at least 30% “+1” votes, and
* no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has
been addressed and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)

Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the
GSIPs) I believe both proposals have passed.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via
Geoserver-devel  wrote:

Thank you, Jukka!


Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that
both proposals are accepted?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:


+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
*Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
    *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote
    metadata and csw-iso to extensions

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes
(three +1, no -1), but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only
two +1). Does anyone else still want to add a vote?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you
did the work on behalf of a particular government
department and had their permission/authority to
donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
really interested in being careful you could ask the
manager (whoever paid you or authorized the work) to
sign a "Corporate contributor license

<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso)
as the contributed work in "Schedule B" at the
bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright
owner or legal entity authorized by the
copyright owner that is making this Agreement
with the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall
mean the copyright owner or legal entity
authorized by the copyright owner that is making
this Agreement with the Foundation.

So a government should be able to sign it.

--

Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via
Geoserver-devel
 wrote:

Hello,

  

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

Ah, I just remembered this one:

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186

This proposal allows to contribute without CLA, even at the extension level
(so far I believe we have only one at the community module level, GSR).
Check out the restrictions for this kind of module.

Cheers
Andrea


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:08 AM Niels Charlier  wrote:

> I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you should be
> good"). perhaps I misunderstood?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
> That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We can't
> have the metadata module if the CLA bit
> has not been addressed. This is a blocker.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime <
> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Niels,
>> let's see what the rules say:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>>
>> In particular:
>>
>> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast their
>> vote.
>> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>>
>> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
>> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
>> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
>> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>>
>> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
>> believe both proposals have passed.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>>
>>>
>>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>>> are accepted?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Niels
>>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>>> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
>>> 
>>> *Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
>>> 
>>> *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso
>>> to extensions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1),
>>> but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want
>>> to add a vote?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Niels!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
>>> behalf of a particular government department and had their
>>> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
>>> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
>>> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
>>> <https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
>>> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
>>> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
>>> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
>>> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
>>> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
>>> the Foundation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So a government should be able to sign it.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSI

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

I understood from Jody that nothing per se had to happen ("you should be 
good"). perhaps I misunderstood?


Kind Regards

Niels

On 24/04/2022 09:56, Andrea Aime wrote:
That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We 
can't have the metadata module if the CLA bit

has not been addressed. This is a blocker.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime 
 wrote:


Hi Niels,
let's see what the rules say:


https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip

In particular:

Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have
cast their vote.
* At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed
to be +0.

A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
* at least 30% “+1” votes, and
* no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been
addressed and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)

Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs)
I believe both proposals have passed.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
 wrote:

Thank you, Jukka!


Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both
proposals are accepted?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:


+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
*Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
<mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel

<mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
    *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and
    csw-iso to extensions

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1,
no -1), but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does
anyone else still want to add a vote?

Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did
the work on behalf of a particular government department
and had their permission/authority to donate to OSGeo
then you should be good. If you are really interested in
being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid you
or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor
license

<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as
the contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the
document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or
legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that
is making this Agreement with the Foundation. "You"
(or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
entity authorized by the copyright owner that is
making this Agreement with the Foundation.

So a government should be able to sign it.

--

Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via
Geoserver-devel 
wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community
modules "metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all
okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata
module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract
particular
government department. I believe they technically
have copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required
though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@list

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

I will vote +0 for both (sorry I have not had a chance to review closely).

Jody

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:55 PM Andrea Aime <
andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:

> Hi Niels,
> let's see what the rules say:
>
>
> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>
> In particular:
>
> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast their
> vote.
> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>
> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>
> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
> believe both proposals have passed.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>
>>
>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>> are accepted?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>
>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>> 
>> 
>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
>> 
>> *Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
>> 
>> *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to
>> extensions
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), but
>> GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want to
>> add a vote?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> Hey Niels!
>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
>> behalf of a particular government department and had their
>> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
>> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
>> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
>> <https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
>> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
>> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>>
>>
>>
>> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
>> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
>> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
>> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
>> the Foundation.
>>
>>
>>
>> So a government should be able to sign it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>>
>> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>>
>> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
>> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
>> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
>> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
>> sign CLA for businesses?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrea Aime
>
> ==
> GeoServer Professional Services from the expert

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

That said... while Jody did not vote, his CLA feedback is valid. We can't
have the metadata module if the CLA bit
has not been addressed. This is a blocker.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andrea Aime <
andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:

> Hi Niels,
> let's see what the rules say:
>
>
> https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip
>
> In particular:
>
> Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast their
> vote.
> * At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.
>
> A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
> * at least 30% “+1” votes, and
> * no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed
> and any “-1” voters have changed their votes)
>
> Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I
> believe both proposals have passed.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Jukka!
>>
>>
>> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals
>> are accepted?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>>
>> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
>> 
>> 
>> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
>> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
>> 
>> *Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
>> 
>> *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to
>> extensions
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), but
>> GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want to
>> add a vote?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>> Hey Niels!
>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
>> behalf of a particular government department and had their
>> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
>> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
>> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
>> <https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
>> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
>> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>>
>>
>>
>> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
>> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
>> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
>> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
>> the Foundation.
>>
>>
>>
>> So a government should be able to sign it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>>
>> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>>
>> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
>> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
>> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
>> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
>> sign CLA for businesses?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Re

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

Hi Niels,
let's see what the rules say:

https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/gsip.html#voting-on-a-gsip

In particular:

Voting remains open for ten days or until all PSC members have cast their
vote.
* At the end of ten days time any remaining votes are assumed to be +0.

A GSIP is accepted if it receives:
* at least 30% “+1” votes, and
* no “-1” votes (or all feedback from any “-1” votes has been addressed and
any “-1” voters have changed their votes)

Considering Jukka's last vote (still to be recorded in the GSIPs) I believe
both proposals have passed.

Cheers
Andrea

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:02 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Thank you, Jukka!
>
>
> Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals are
> accepted?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>
> +1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.
>
>
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
>
>
> *Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
> 
> 
> *Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
> *Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
> 
> *Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
> 
> *Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to
> extensions
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), but
> GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want to
> add a vote?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
> On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> Hey Niels!
>
>
>
> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
> behalf of a particular government department and had their
> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
> <https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>
>
>
> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>
>
>
> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
> the Foundation.
>
>
>
> So a government should be able to sign it.
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>
> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>
> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
> sign CLA for businesses?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>


-- 

Regards,

Andrea Aime

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions Group
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272

mob:   +39  333 8128928

https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/

http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---

Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE
2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si
precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo
contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è
riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il
messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra
operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Thank you, Jukka!


Can I assume then that the absent votes are +0 and that both proposals 
are accepted?


Kind Regards

Niels

On 21/04/2022 12:39, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:


+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:* Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 


*Lähetetty:* torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
*Vastaanottaja:* Jody Garnett 
*Kopio:* Geoserver-devel 
*Aihe:* Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso 
to extensions


Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), 
but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still 
want to add a vote?


Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work
on behalf of a particular government department and had their
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good.
If you are really interested in being careful you could ask the
manager (whoever paid you or authorized the work) to sign a
"Corporate contributor license
<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>",
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the
contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this
Agreement with the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean
the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the
copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
Foundation.

So a government should be able to sign it.

--

Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
 wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules
"metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay.
Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was
mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
government department. I believe they technically have
copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required though?
Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Rahkonen Jukka (MML)]

+1 for both GSIP-311 and GSIP-312.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

Lähettäjä: Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 

Lähetetty: torstai 21. huhtikuuta 2022 12.01
Vastaanottaja: Jody Garnett 
Kopio: Geoserver-devel 
Aihe: Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to 
extensions


Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), but 
GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still want to add a 
vote?

Kind Regards

Niels
On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:
Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on behalf of 
a particular government department and had their permission/authority to donate 
to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are really interested in being careful 
you could ask the manager (whoever paid you or authorized the work) to sign a 
"Corporate contributor 
license<https://www.osgeo.org/wp-content/uploads/corporate_contributor.pdf>", 
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed work in 
"Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by 
the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation. "You" 
(or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the 
copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation.

So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett

On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
 wrote:
Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hello everyone,

So if I get it right GSIP-311 has sufficient votes (three +1, no -1), 
but GSIP-312 doesn't (no -1, but only two +1). Does anyone else still 
want to add a vote?


Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on 
behalf of a particular government department and had their 
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If 
you are really interested in being careful you could ask the manager 
(whoever paid you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate 
contributor license 
", 
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the 
contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.


Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity 
authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with 
the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or 
legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this 
Agreement with the Foundation.


So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
 wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hello Mats,

That is because geoserver by default doesn't have any metadata fields 
for storing dates of creation and modification.


This is where the metadata module comes in handy. There you can add 
unlimited amount of date fields to your layer and configure them with 
UI. It also provides support for timestamping the metadata changes 
automatically. The documentation for metadata module is here: 
https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/metadata/index.html


This might also be very useful to you: 
https://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/user/tutorials/metadata/index.html
We put all our configuration files on there to share, so people can 
immediately find examples that work.


Kind Regards

Niels


On 11/04/2022 12:36, Mats Elfström wrote:

Hi Niels! Aim high, hit low.
There seems to be no disagreement on your original proposal, and I 
also believe that the bug here lies in the documentation. And trust 
me, I'd be happy to contribute a working setup if I could manage to 
put one together.
My goal is to publish geodata on Geoserver and add a little more 
metadata to the CSW than the simple WMS provides when harvested to 
Geonetwork. And I think CSW-ISO would do the trick. But this line in 
the mapping file stops the harvester:

$dateStamp.Date= if_then_else ( isNull("metadata.date") , 'Unknown', 
"metadata.date")
Since I cannot figure out how to populate metadata.date the returned 
date will be 'Unknown' which Geonetwork refuses to accept.
The Creation date would do fine, but I would like to add a Revision 
date as well since the underlying PostGIS data will change.
I have asked for help on several mailing lists to no avail. If these 
parameters are documented, please link me to that. I should not be 
that hard to figure out.


Regards, Mats.E

Den mån 11 apr. 2022 kl 09:43 skrev Niels Charlier via Ge
Coserver-devel :

Hello Mats and Richard,

Thank you for your feedback. I hear two signals from you:

(1) there is demand for the functionality of these modules;
(2) they are currently too hard to deploy and configure, or in other
words there is demand for better support.

Considering these points I think it would be good to get more
discussion/questions on here and jira issue tracking going on for
these
modules. I am absolutely willing to respond to your
questions/problems,
if I have missed anything that was sent to this ML I do apologize. I
also hope that with the promotion of the modules we will make
progress
in this department.

I can assure that the modules do work and have been put to use by
different people. If there are issues with initial deployment,
they are
probably easy to solve if reported (I often work directly from custom
builds, so that is why I might not be aware). But the modules
should not
be merged; they each have use cases separate from each other and
serve
different purposes. Perhaps their build could be combined into a
single
zip file, but I doubt that would be such a time saver.

I do agree that the configuration is really a very big bottleneck,
and
that is harder to solve:

- for CSW, the so-called "mapping file" is an absolute disaster for
ISO/inspire. The system was created (by me, I admit) as it was an
easy,
quick and convenient way to set-up very basic, simple metadata in
Dublin
Core. But for ISO/inspire the mapping file becomes a monster that is
extremely hard to set up and maintain. I believe CSW needs a new
configuration system, using templates that are more intuitive and
maintainable. So if anyone would fund me writing that, I would
give much
applause.

- for the metadata module, I am quite happy with the configuration
system. Yes, it is also quite complicated, but that complication is a
necessary consequence of the advanced customization that is
possible. So
it might be necessary for a new user to familiarize themselves
with the
module and all its possibilities. If people can't figure it out, I
would
say it must be a problem of documentation, so perhaps feedback and
issue
reporting could help to improve that.

Kind Regards

Niels


On 09/04/2022 11:55, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> My 1c: fully agree with Mats, being somebody getting cold when
hearing
> 'metadata' and 'csw' in one sentence, I was still eager to try
to test
> this in geoserver, hoping I could make this work as csw in QGIS...
>
> But I failed miserably too (even asked mr Geonetwork for help),
> because of our inexperience with all the metadata lingua (profiles,
> mappings to fields, several xml files to edit etc etc) and just the
> inability to add some custom fields.
>
> I hope this proposal would make this a little easier :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On 4/9/22 11:10, Mats Elfström wrote:

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Mats Elfström]

Hi Niels! Aim high, hit low.
There seems to be no disagreement on your original proposal, and I also
believe that the bug here lies in the documentation. And trust me, I'd be
happy to contribute a working setup if I could manage to put one together.
My goal is to publish geodata on Geoserver and add a little more metadata
to the CSW than the simple WMS provides when harvested to Geonetwork. And I
think CSW-ISO would do the trick. But this line in the mapping file stops
the harvester:

$dateStamp.Date= if_then_else ( isNull("metadata.date") , 'Unknown',
"metadata.date")

Since I cannot figure out how to populate metadata.date  the returned date
will be 'Unknown' which Geonetwork refuses to accept.
The Creation date would do fine, but I would like to add a Revision date as
well since the underlying PostGIS data will change.
I have asked for help on several mailing lists to no avail. If these
parameters are documented, please link me to that. I should not be that
hard to figure out.

Regards, Mats.E

Den mån 11 apr. 2022 kl 09:43 skrev Niels Charlier via Ge
Coserver-devel :

> Hello Mats and Richard,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. I hear two signals from you:
>
> (1) there is demand for the functionality of these modules;
> (2) they are currently too hard to deploy and configure, or in other
> words there is demand for better support.
>
> Considering these points I think it would be good to get more
> discussion/questions on here and jira issue tracking going on for these
> modules. I am absolutely willing to respond to your questions/problems,
> if I have missed anything that was sent to this ML I do apologize. I
> also hope that with the promotion of the modules we will make progress
> in this department.
>
> I can assure that the modules do work and have been put to use by
> different people. If there are issues with initial deployment, they are
> probably easy to solve if reported (I often work directly from custom
> builds, so that is why I might not be aware). But the modules should not
> be merged; they each have use cases separate from each other and serve
> different purposes. Perhaps their build could be combined into a single
> zip file, but I doubt that would be such a time saver.
>
> I do agree that the configuration is really a very big bottleneck, and
> that is harder to solve:
>
> - for CSW, the so-called "mapping file" is an absolute disaster for
> ISO/inspire. The system was created (by me, I admit) as it was an easy,
> quick and convenient way to set-up very basic, simple metadata in Dublin
> Core. But for ISO/inspire the mapping file becomes a monster that is
> extremely hard to set up and maintain. I believe CSW needs a new
> configuration system, using templates that are more intuitive and
> maintainable. So if anyone would fund me writing that, I would give much
> applause.
>
> - for the metadata module, I am quite happy with the configuration
> system. Yes, it is also quite complicated, but that complication is a
> necessary consequence of the advanced customization that is possible. So
> it might be necessary for a new user to familiarize themselves with the
> module and all its possibilities. If people can't figure it out, I would
> say it must be a problem of documentation, so perhaps feedback and issue
> reporting could help to improve that.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
>
> On 09/04/2022 11:55, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
> > Hi List,
> >
> > My 1c: fully agree with Mats, being somebody getting cold when hearing
> > 'metadata' and 'csw' in one sentence, I was still eager to try to test
> > this in geoserver, hoping I could make this work as csw in QGIS...
> >
> > But I failed miserably too (even asked mr Geonetwork for help),
> > because of our inexperience with all the metadata lingua (profiles,
> > mappings to fields, several xml files to edit etc etc) and just the
> > inability to add some custom fields.
> >
> > I hope this proposal would make this a little easier :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On 4/9/22 11:10, Mats Elfström wrote:
> >> Hi! My 2c on this proposal.
> >> I have been struggling trying to make use of Geoserver as a metadata
> >> repository and source for published geodata. With no success. Even a
> >> vanilla installation, using unaltered sample configuration files,
> >> fails to generate any output that Geonetwork harvester will accept.
> >> The geoserver subsystem for metadata involves 4 extensions, two of
> >> which are community and two are supported extensions. Promoting the
> >> two community modules is a good start. Maybe this will ensure that
> >> these four modules will work together as expected.
> >> But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW,
> >> Metadata and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be
> >> easier to install, configure and maintain if combined into a single
> >> extension? If I may be so bold? And even further, made part of
> >> Geoserver core.
> >> Metadata is the most important single 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hello Mats and Richard,

Thank you for your feedback. I hear two signals from you:

(1) there is demand for the functionality of these modules;
(2) they are currently too hard to deploy and configure, or in other 
words there is demand for better support.


Considering these points I think it would be good to get more 
discussion/questions on here and jira issue tracking going on for these 
modules. I am absolutely willing to respond to your questions/problems, 
if I have missed anything that was sent to this ML I do apologize. I 
also hope that with the promotion of the modules we will make progress 
in this department.


I can assure that the modules do work and have been put to use by 
different people. If there are issues with initial deployment, they are 
probably easy to solve if reported (I often work directly from custom 
builds, so that is why I might not be aware). But the modules should not 
be merged; they each have use cases separate from each other and serve 
different purposes. Perhaps their build could be combined into a single 
zip file, but I doubt that would be such a time saver.


I do agree that the configuration is really a very big bottleneck, and 
that is harder to solve:


- for CSW, the so-called "mapping file" is an absolute disaster for 
ISO/inspire. The system was created (by me, I admit) as it was an easy, 
quick and convenient way to set-up very basic, simple metadata in Dublin 
Core. But for ISO/inspire the mapping file becomes a monster that is 
extremely hard to set up and maintain. I believe CSW needs a new 
configuration system, using templates that are more intuitive and 
maintainable. So if anyone would fund me writing that, I would give much 
applause.


- for the metadata module, I am quite happy with the configuration 
system. Yes, it is also quite complicated, but that complication is a 
necessary consequence of the advanced customization that is possible. So 
it might be necessary for a new user to familiarize themselves with the 
module and all its possibilities. If people can't figure it out, I would 
say it must be a problem of documentation, so perhaps feedback and issue 
reporting could help to improve that.


Kind Regards

Niels


On 09/04/2022 11:55, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:

Hi List,

My 1c: fully agree with Mats, being somebody getting cold when hearing 
'metadata' and 'csw' in one sentence, I was still eager to try to test 
this in geoserver, hoping I could make this work as csw in QGIS...


But I failed miserably too (even asked mr Geonetwork for help), 
because of our inexperience with all the metadata lingua (profiles, 
mappings to fields, several xml files to edit etc etc) and just the 
inability to add some custom fields.


I hope this proposal would make this a little easier :-)

Regards,

Richard

On 4/9/22 11:10, Mats Elfström wrote:

Hi! My 2c on this proposal.
I have been struggling trying to make use of Geoserver as a metadata 
repository and source for published geodata. With no success. Even a 
vanilla installation, using unaltered sample configuration files, 
fails to generate any output that Geonetwork harvester will accept.
The geoserver subsystem for metadata involves 4 extensions, two of 
which are community and two are supported extensions. Promoting the 
two community modules is a good start. Maybe this will ensure that 
these four modules will work together as expected.
But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW, 
Metadata and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be 
easier to install, configure and maintain if combined into a single 
extension? If I may be so bold? And even further, made part of 
Geoserver core.
Metadata is the most important single factor for the availability and 
useability of geodata, and Geoserver is an important player in this 
field. Given that PostGIS lacks a built-in metadata function, 
Geoserver could fill that void, even if only for published data.
Some have suggested that the lack of interest in the csw-metadata 
parts of Geoserver is due to the fact that very few use it. But is 
that because it is not needed, or because it is too hard to set up 
and configure?

Best regards, Mats.E

Den fre 8 apr. 2022 kl 14:28 skrev Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
>:


    Hi Simone,

    Thanks for your vote. Yes I am available for all questions 
regarding the modules and general maintenance as required or 
requested by the PSC .


    Kind Regards

    Niels

    On 06/04/2022 15:49, Simone Giannecchini wrote:

    Hi Niels,
    I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.

    I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's 
questions on the ML and keeping the modules following the general 
GeoServer development.


    Regards,
    Simone Giannecchini
    ==
    Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from 
the experts!
    Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services  for 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

 Agreed please do not dump inspire stuff into GeoServer :)

If you would like an easy to install bundle, help contribute to the
community docker activity, or make a predefined way with the
modules/extensions included.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 9, 2022 at 6:43:35 PM, Brad Hards  wrote:

> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 7:10:55 PM AEST Mats Elfström wrote:
>
> But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW, Metadata
>
> and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be easier to
>
> install, configure and maintain if combined into a single extension?
>
>
> I accept that INSPIRE is really important to some users (and uses).
> However
> not all of the world is Europe, so that may not be appropriate in general.
>
> If I
>
> may be so bold? And even further, made part of Geoserver core.
>
>
> I would not like to have anything added to core unless there are solid,
> long
> term support plans for it. That is, who is going to do the development,
> maintenance and validation?
>
> This is not intended as a statement against (or for) migrating those to
> extension status.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Brad Hards]

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 7:10:55 PM AEST Mats Elfström wrote:
> But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW, Metadata
> and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be easier to
> install, configure and maintain if combined into a single extension? 

I accept that INSPIRE is really important to some users (and uses). However 
not all of the world is Europe, so that may not be appropriate in general.

> If I
> may be so bold? And even further, made part of Geoserver core.

I would not like to have anything added to core unless there are solid, long 
term support plans for it. That is, who is going to do the development, 
maintenance and validation?

This is not intended as a statement against (or for) migrating those to 
extension status.

Brad







___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

Agree metadata is indeed hard, and not all of the record formats have the
ability to add custom fields (because that would be a new profile to
document the fields):
- Do not make a new profile (unless you are a national government etc...)
- That means you do not make custom fields
- Choose a record format that is popular (or required by your national
government - popular)
- Still do not make custom fields
- Have a look for areas that are designed for customization like keywords
.. but even then the keywords are most useful when defined by a dictionary
(thesauri) so they can be translated across cultures.
- Make custom keywords not custom fields
- Still do not make custom fields
- If you find custom fields have been made, invention a convention for how
to store them in a description or something.

  As an example the canadian harmonized north american profile (HNAP) makes
a convention for online resource description:
"ContentType;Format;Lang,Lang,Lang"

- The convention can be terrible - consider linking to online resource
where your geoserver layer can be accessed.

  ISO19139 does not indicate which layer when referencing a WMS
GetCapabilities document.

 One convention is to store the layer name in the online resource title,
and then store the layer title in the online resource description.

  If you remember above HNAP was already using online resource description,
so they hide the layer name in the WMS GetCapabilites URL by adding a
"=" suffix to GetCapabiities URL

- The goal is to share information, adding custom fields, or even
conventions like the above, cuts down on your success at sharing
information.

Recommendation:
- ISO19139 is an XML document describing geospatial stuff
- ISO19115 defines what is stored in ISO19139 document above
- If you are a developer use an xml editor so you can validate your document

I think testing from QGIS would be a good goal for the module.

Jody

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:56 AM Richard Duivenvoorde 
wrote:

> Hi List,
>
> My 1c: fully agree with Mats, being somebody getting cold when hearing
> 'metadata' and 'csw' in one sentence, I was still eager to try to test this
> in geoserver, hoping I could make this work as csw in QGIS...
>
> But I failed miserably too (even asked mr Geonetwork for help), because of
> our inexperience with all the metadata lingua (profiles, mappings to
> fields, several xml files to edit etc etc) and just the inability to add
> some custom fields.
>
> I hope this proposal would make this a little easier :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
> On 4/9/22 11:10, Mats Elfström wrote:
> > Hi! My 2c on this proposal.
> > I have been struggling trying to make use of Geoserver as a metadata
> repository and source for published geodata. With no success. Even a
> vanilla installation, using unaltered sample configuration files, fails to
> generate any output that Geonetwork harvester will accept.
> > The geoserver subsystem for metadata involves 4 extensions, two of which
> are community and two are supported extensions. Promoting the two community
> modules is a good start. Maybe this will ensure that these four modules
> will work together as expected.
> > But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW,
> Metadata and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be easier
> to install, configure and maintain if combined into a single extension? If
> I may be so bold? And even further, made part of Geoserver core.
> > Metadata is the most important single factor for the availability and
> useability of geodata, and Geoserver is an important player in this field.
> Given that PostGIS lacks a built-in metadata function, Geoserver could fill
> that void, even if only for published data.
> > Some have suggested that the lack of interest in the csw-metadata parts
> of Geoserver is due to the fact that very few use it. But is that because
> it is not needed, or because it is too hard to set up and configure?
> > Best regards, Mats.E
> >
> > Den fre 8 apr. 2022 kl 14:28 skrev Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net  geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>:
> >
> > Hi Simone,
> >
> > Thanks for your vote. Yes I am available for all questions regarding
> the modules and general maintenance as required or requested by the PSC .
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > Niels
> >
> > On 06/04/2022 15:49, Simone Giannecchini wrote:
> >> Hi Niels,
> >> I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.
> >>
> >> I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's
> questions on the ML and keeping the modules following the general GeoServer
> development.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Simone Giannecchini
> >> ==
> >> Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from the
> experts!
> >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services  for
> more information.
> >> ==
> >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini
> >> @simogeo
> >> 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Richard Duivenvoorde]

Hi List,

My 1c: fully agree with Mats, being somebody getting cold when hearing 
'metadata' and 'csw' in one sentence, I was still eager to try to test this in 
geoserver, hoping I could make this work as csw in QGIS...

But I failed miserably too (even asked mr Geonetwork for help), because of our 
inexperience with all the metadata lingua (profiles, mappings to fields, 
several xml files to edit etc etc) and just the inability to add some custom 
fields.

I hope this proposal would make this a little easier :-)

Regards,

Richard

On 4/9/22 11:10, Mats Elfström wrote:

Hi! My 2c on this proposal.
I have been struggling trying to make use of Geoserver as a metadata repository 
and source for published geodata. With no success. Even a vanilla installation, 
using unaltered sample configuration files, fails to generate any output that 
Geonetwork harvester will accept.
The geoserver subsystem for metadata involves 4 extensions, two of which are 
community and two are supported extensions. Promoting the two community modules 
is a good start. Maybe this will ensure that these four modules will work 
together as expected.
But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW, Metadata and 
ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be easier to install, 
configure and maintain if combined into a single extension? If I may be so 
bold? And even further, made part of Geoserver core.
Metadata is the most important single factor for the availability and 
useability of geodata, and Geoserver is an important player in this field. 
Given that PostGIS lacks a built-in metadata function, Geoserver could fill 
that void, even if only for published data.
Some have suggested that the lack of interest in the csw-metadata parts of 
Geoserver is due to the fact that very few use it. But is that because it is 
not needed, or because it is too hard to set up and configure?
Best regards, Mats.E

Den fre 8 apr. 2022 kl 14:28 skrev Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>:

Hi Simone,

Thanks for your vote. Yes I am available for all questions regarding the 
modules and general maintenance as required or requested by the PSC .

Kind Regards

Niels

On 06/04/2022 15:49, Simone Giannecchini wrote:

Hi Niels,
I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.

I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's questions on 
the ML and keeping the modules following the general GeoServer development.

Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services  for more 
information.
==
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
President GeoSolutions USA

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:     +39 0584 1660272
mob:   +39  333 8128928
US: +1 (845) 547-7905

http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com 
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it 

---
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or 
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European 
Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or 
the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us 
immediately by telephone or e-mail.


On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:43 AM Jody Garnett mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on behalf of a particular 
government department and had their permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If 
you are really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid you or authorized the 
work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license 
", and name the body of 
the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the 
document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:


​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the 
copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the 
copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation.


So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
mailto:geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>> wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Mats Elfström]

Hi! My 2c on this proposal.
I have been struggling trying to make use of Geoserver as a metadata
repository and source for published geodata. With no success. Even a
vanilla installation, using unaltered sample configuration files, fails to
generate any output that Geonetwork harvester will accept.
The geoserver subsystem for metadata involves 4 extensions, two of which
are community and two are supported extensions. Promoting the two community
modules is a good start. Maybe this will ensure that these four modules
will work together as expected.
But I would like to propose an even bolder approach. To me, CSW, Metadata
and ISO-INSPIRE are parts of a whole and would perhaps be easier to
install, configure and maintain if combined into a single extension? If I
may be so bold? And even further, made part of Geoserver core.
Metadata is the most important single factor for the availability and
useability of geodata, and Geoserver is an important player in this field.
Given that PostGIS lacks a built-in metadata function, Geoserver could fill
that void, even if only for published data.
Some have suggested that the lack of interest in the csw-metadata parts of
Geoserver is due to the fact that very few use it. But is that because it
is not needed, or because it is too hard to set up and configure?
Best regards, Mats.E

Den fre 8 apr. 2022 kl 14:28 skrev Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>:

> Hi Simone,
>
> Thanks for your vote. Yes I am available for all questions regarding the
> modules and general maintenance as required or requested by the PSC .
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
> On 06/04/2022 15:49, Simone Giannecchini wrote:
>
> Hi Niels,
> I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.
>
> I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's questions on
> the ML and keeping the modules following the general GeoServer development.
>
> Regards,
> Simone Giannecchini
> ==
> Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from the experts!
> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
> ==
> Ing. Simone Giannecchini
> @simogeo
> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
> President GeoSolutions USA
>
> phone: +39 0584 962313
> fax: +39 0584 1660272
> mob:   +39  333 8128928
> US: +1 (845) 547-7905
>
> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>
> ---
> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:43 AM Jody Garnett 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Niels!
>>
>> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
>> behalf of a particular government department and had their
>> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
>> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
>> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
>> ",
>> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
>> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>>
>> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>>
>> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
>>> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
>>> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
>>> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
>>> the Foundation.
>>>
>>
>> So a government should be able to sign it.
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
>> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>>>
>>> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>>>
>>> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
>>> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
>>> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
>>> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
>>> sign CLA for businesses?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> 

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hi Simone,

Thanks for your vote. Yes I am available for all questions regarding the 
modules and general maintenance as required or requested by the PSC .


Kind Regards

Niels

On 06/04/2022 15:49, Simone Giannecchini wrote:

Hi Niels,
I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.

I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's 
questions on the ML and keeping the modules following the general 
GeoServer development.


Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
==
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
President GeoSolutions USA

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:     +39 0584 1660272
mob:   +39  333 8128928
US: +1 (845) 547-7905

http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided 
by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use 
of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the 
intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by 
mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.



On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:43 AM Jody Garnett  
wrote:


Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work
on behalf of a particular government department and had their
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good.
If you are really interested in being careful you could ask the
manager (whoever paid you or authorized the work) to sign a
"Corporate contributor license
",
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the
contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:


​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement
with the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright
owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is
making this Agreement with the Foundation.


So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel
 wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules
"metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please
discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
government department. I believe they technically have
copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hi Jody,

You answered the question. Good to hear that you see no problem. They 
are willing to sign, but they just can't figure out who specifically 
should sign it, lol.


Kind Regards

Niels

On 05/04/2022 05:42, Jody Garnett wrote:

Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on 
behalf of a particular government department and had their 
permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If 
you are really interested in being careful you could ask the manager 
(whoever paid you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate 
contributor license 
", 
and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the 
contributed work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.


Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity 
authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with 
the Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or 
legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this 
Agreement with the Foundation.


So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel 
 wrote:

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
and "csw-iso" to extensions.

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
sign CLA for businesses?

Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Nuno Oliveira]

+0, I don't have experience in using those modules.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:29 AM Ian Turton  wrote:

> +1
>
> Ian
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>>
>> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>>
>> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
>> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
>> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
>> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
>> sign CLA for businesses?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
>
>
> --
> Ian Turton
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>


-- 

Regards,

Nuno Oliveira

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information.
==

Nuno Miguel Carvalho Oliveira
@nmcoliveira
Technical Lead / Project Manager


GeoSolutions Group
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:  +39 0584 1660272

https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
---


Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE
2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si
precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo
contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è
riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il
messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra
operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia.

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Ian Turton]

+1

Ian

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>
> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>
> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
> sign CLA for businesses?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>


-- 
Ian Turton
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Andrea Aime]

Hi Niels,
+1 on the CSW proposal, the code used to be in extension.

+0 on the metadata module, not because I have issues with it, but just
because I cannot answer the question of whether "I can consider it stable",
having never used it or looked into it.

Cheers
Andrea


On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:50 PM Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>
> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>
> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
> sign CLA for businesses?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>


-- 

Regards,

Andrea Aime

==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!

Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information.
==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions Group
phone: +39 0584 962313

fax: +39 0584 1660272

mob:   +39  333 8128928

https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/

http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---

Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE
2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si
precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo
contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è
riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il
messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra
operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia.

This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Simone Giannecchini]

Hi Niels,
I'd say +1 as we use at least CSW quite a lot ourselves.

I am assuming you are also stepping up to supporting people's questions on
the ML and keeping the modules following the general GeoServer development.

Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
Professional Support for GeoNode, GeoServer and MapStore from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
==
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
President GeoSolutions USA

phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob:   +39  333 8128928
US: +1 (845) 547-7905

http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

---
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.


On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:43 AM Jody Garnett  wrote:

> Hey Niels!
>
> Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on
> behalf of a particular government department and had their
> permission/authority to donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are
> really interested in being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid
> you or authorized the work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
> ",
> and name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed
> work in "Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.
>
> Although it says "corporate" it is really:
>
> ​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
>> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
>> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
>> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
>> the Foundation.
>>
>
> So a government should be able to sign it.
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
> geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
>> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>>
>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>>
>> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>>
>> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
>> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
>> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
>> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
>> sign CLA for businesses?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Geoserver-devel mailing list
>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Jody Garnett]

 Hey Niels!

Not quite sure I understand the CLA question; if you did the work on behalf
of a particular government department and had their permission/authority to
donate to OSGeo then you should be good. If you are really interested in
being careful you could ask the manager (whoever paid you or authorized the
work) to sign a "Corporate contributor license
", and
name the body of the work (metadata and csw-iso) as the contributed work in
"Schedule B" at the bottom of the document.

Although it says "corporate" it is really:

​"You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
> authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the
> Foundation. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal
> entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with
> the Foundation.
>

So a government should be able to sign it.
--
Jody Garnett


On Apr 4, 2022 at 4:49:08 AM, Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel <
geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata"
> and "csw-iso" to extensions.
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311
>
> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312
>
> I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.
>
> One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly
> written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular
> government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and
> agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they
> sign CLA for businesses?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

[Geoserver-devel] proposals: promote metadata and csw-iso to extensions

[Niels Charlier via Geoserver-devel]

Hello,

I have written up two proposals to promote community modules "metadata" 
and "csw-iso" to extensions.


https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-311

https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-312

I believe stability, test coverage, users, are all okay. Please discuss.

One question about copyrights though: the metadata module was mostly 
written by me (who signed CLA) as part of a contract particular 
government department. I believe they technically have copyrights, and 
agreed to open source it. What would be required though? Should they 
sign CLA for businesses?


Kind Regards

Niels



___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel