Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

jody.garnett
I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from the incubation process.

(I will need a second, and then you can reply to this email, if you like you can review the discussion last week for the incubation checklist and my notes when mentoring the project)

-- 
Jody Garnett


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

Arnulf Christl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is the announcement of a motion, right? I'll then herewith
announce my second in case you make the motion. :-)

Cheers,
Arnulf

On 18.03.2013 05:55, Jody Garnett wrote:

> I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from
> the incubation process.
>
> (I will need a second, and then you can reply to this email, if you
> like you can review the discussion last week for the incubation
> checklist and my notes when mentoring the project)
>
> -- Jody Garnett
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Incubator mailing
> list [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>


- --
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFHCP0ACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b26rACfftrOqSGgpUj2xyo5MKiv6Lqy
y0YAnjwO+igtDyzAcbcvThGO17BBYh+z
=ETB/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

jody.garnett
Thanks Arnulf, motion is open for voting then.

The current committee members from the website are:

  • Bruce Bannerman
  • Landon Blake
  • Robert Bray
  • Howard Butler
  • Arnulf Christl
  • Jody Garnett (chair)
  • Chris Holmes
  • Dimitris Kotzinos
  • Julien-Samuel Lacroix
  • Mark Lucas
  • Steve Lime
  • Judit Mays
  • Daniel Morissette
  • Markus Neteler
  • Jorge Sanz
  • Markus Schneider
  • Cameron Shorter
  • Paul Spencer
  • Jeroen Ticheler
  • Norman Vine
  • Frank Warmerdam
(If I missed anyone please let me know)
-- 
Jody Garnett

On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 11:30 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is the announcement of a motion, right? I'll then herewith
announce my second in case you make the motion. :-)

Cheers,
Arnulf

On 18.03.2013 05:55, Jody Garnett wrote:
I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from
the incubation process.

(I will need a second, and then you can reply to this email, if you
like you can review the discussion last week for the incubation
checklist and my notes when mentoring the project)

-- Jody Garnett



_______________________________________________ Incubator mailing


- --
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFHCP0ACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b26rACfftrOqSGgpUj2xyo5MKiv6Lqy
y0YAnjwO+igtDyzAcbcvThGO17BBYh+z
=ETB/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Some questions and comments on GeoMoose after reading through the
Incubation Checklist here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist

(I think the project is getting close, but not quite ready to complete
graduation)

1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project, from 5
organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable number for a
maturing project if the organisations are independent of each other.
However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these developers and
organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored by the one agency?

2. It seems there are still some of loose ends which are still to be
addressed, and I think that projects should not ask for graduation
approval until they have been addressed. In particular, Jody mentioned:
* No clear statement yet on the licence of documentation? Reference to
an email discussion about license, doesn't constitute completion. I'm
looking for a license statement on website or developer guidelines or
similar.
* While not a show stopper, I'd expect that code contributors should be
able to contribute code under the project's MIT license, rather than
being required to contribute under public domain.
* I see there are 2 outstanding tickets 179, 180 addressing license
issues. I'd like to see these addressed before we consider the project
ready to complete graduation.

Documentation:
http://www.geomoose.org/developer/index.html
* I notice that core documentation is being stored in a RFC, eg:
"Project Steering Committee Guidelines".
* I'd expect that once the RFC has been approved, that the documentation
is moved into the main documentation structure from which it can
continue to be maintained. (I see RFCs as decisions that have been made,
and then fixed in time, rather than current working documentation).

* Link to "How to Release" points nowhere.

* Project Officer: No one named yet. I'd expect a volunteer to be
identified.



On 18/03/2013 3:55 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from
> the incubation process.
>
>

On 13/03/2013 4:45 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:

> Here is the checklist now:
> - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>
> Discussion is open if you have any questions, everything looks in
> order from my point of view.
>
> A couple of notes from my time as mentor:
> - the project decisions have gotten way easier to track, with a
> separate email list and RFC process.
> - the documentation license question was interesting (as we had the
> same discussion for GeoServer) - the result in this case is the
> documentation being covered under the same MIT license as the codebase
> - code contribution agreement is handled via contributors donating
> work into the public domain (there are two outstanding trace issues to
> patch the developers guide)
> - provenance review did not turn up anything special, sample data was
> credited or replaced with toy data
> - project officer is TBD (and can be nominated when we send the
> project up to the board for approval)
>


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

jody.garnett
It is a shame we did not have this last week. So if you want to vote -1, I can take this feedback back to the GeoMoose devel list and make a motion another month. 
* No clear statement yet on the licence of documentation? Reference to
an email discussion about license, doesn't constitute completion. I'm
looking for a license statement on website or developer guidelines or
similar.
The website mentions the documentation license in the footer of each page:

"© Copyright 2009-2011, Dan "Ducky" Little under License (http://www.geomoose.org/info/license.html). Created using Sphinx 1.1.3." 


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

blammo
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Cameron,

>>  
>>  (I think the project is getting close, but not quite ready to
>>  complete
>>  graduation)
>>  
>>  1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project, from 5
>>  organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable number
>>  for a maturing project if the organisations are independent of
>>  each other.
>>  However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these developers and
>>  organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored by the
>>  one agency?

[bob.b said . . .] each agency/company is sponsoring the individuals as listed here: http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GeoMoose_Incubation_Status

No one agency or company has control of the project.  Some work is sponsored while others are project handbacks from specific projects offered up via the PSC for adding improvements to GeoMoose.  Improvements to the project have come from each of the committers home organizations in the form of donated time, as well as from formal improvement projects from each organization.

>>  
>>  2. It seems there are still some of loose ends which are still to
>>  be addressed, and I think that projects should not ask for
>>  graduation approval until they have been addressed. In
>>  particular, Jody mentioned:
>>  * No clear statement yet on the licence of documentation?
>>  Reference to an email discussion about license, doesn't
>>  constitute completion. I'm looking for a license statement on
>>  website or developer guidelines or similar.

[bob.b said . . .] As a result of the Documentation Licensing discussion, there is a License statement at the bottom of Each GeoMoose web site documentation page that reads: "(c) Copyright 2009-2011, Dan "Ducky" Little under License (http://www.geomoose.org/info/license.html). Created using Sphinx 1.1.3."

As far as contributed documentation, it would fall under the contribution guidelines as indicated in the website as well as the two references RFCs (when completed).

>>  * While not a show stopper, I'd expect that code contributors
>>  should be able to contribute code under the project's MIT
>>  license, rather than being required to contribute under public
>>  domain.

[bob.b said . . .]

No specific requirement has been stated in the interests of leaving the options open for contributors.  But something had to be listed, and an example of a contribution was provided (as described in the RFC), which addresses this.

>>  * I see there are 2 outstanding tickets 179, 180 addressing
>>  license issues. I'd like to see these addressed before we
>>  consider the project ready to complete graduation.
>>  
>>  Documentation:
>>  http://www.geomoose.org/developer/index.html
>>  * I notice that core documentation is being stored in a RFC, eg:
>>  "Project Steering Committee Guidelines".
>>  * I'd expect that once the RFC has been approved, that the
>>  documentation is moved into the main documentation structure from
>>  which it can continue to be maintained. (I see RFCs as decisions
>>  that have been made, and then fixed in time, rather than current
>>  working documentation).
>>  
>>  * Link to "How to Release" points nowhere.
>>  
>>  * Project Officer: No one named yet. I'd expect a volunteer to be
>>  identified.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  On 18/03/2013 3:55 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>  > I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation
>>  from
>>  > the incubation process.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  
>>  On 13/03/2013 4:45 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>  > Here is the checklist now:
>>  > - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>>  >
>>  > Discussion is open if you have any questions, everything looks
>>  in
>>  > order from my point of view.
>>  >
>>  > A couple of notes from my time as mentor:
>>  > - the project decisions have gotten way easier to track, with a
>>  > separate email list and RFC process.
>>  > - the documentation license question was interesting (as we had
>>  the
>>  > same discussion for GeoServer) - the result in this case is the
>>  > documentation being covered under the same MIT license as the
>>  codebase
>>  > - code contribution agreement is handled via contributors
>>  donating
>>  > work into the public domain (there are two outstanding trace
>>  issues to
>>  > patch the developers guide)
>>  > - provenance review did not turn up anything special, sample
>>  data was
>>  > credited or replaced with toy data
>>  > - project officer is TBD (and can be nominated when we send the
>>  > project up to the board for approval)
>>  >
>>  
>>  
>>  --
>>  Cameron Shorter
>>  Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>  Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>  Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>  
>>  Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>  Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>  http://www.lisasoft.com
>>  
>>  --
>>  Cameron Shorter
>>  Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>  Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>  Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>  
>>  Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>  Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>  http://www.lisasoft.com
>>  
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Incubator mailing list
>>  [hidden email]
>>  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman-2
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Re: [Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I think that we need to be realistic here.

I for one, can’t drop other priorities at short notice.

I do have a day job.

I’m sure that others are in a similar position.

Bruce


On 21/03/13 11:51 PM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:

It is a shame we did not have this last week.

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

jody.garnett
I understand Bruce, and I I have tired to make allowances by moving this to email.

Ideally I would like to handle these discussions at an IRC meeting, as the turn around (and review process) is far more efficient. 

We are are at the two week mark here, what would be considered sufficient time (perhaps two weekends?).
-- 
Jody Garnett

On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 8:32 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Re: [Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I think that we need to be realistic here.

I for one, can’t drop other priorities at short notice.

I do have a day job.

I’m sure that others are in a similar position.

Bruce


On 21/03/13 11:51 PM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:

It is a shame we did not have this last week.


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman-2
Re: [Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I’m preparing for an intensive trip, leaving shortly.

I’ll try to look at the status next week.

If you don’t see a response from me in that time it won’t be coming before the end of April.

Don’t hold up the process for me... (...not that you would ;-) )


On a related note, moving this process to email is IMHO a good move. It allows time to review and reflect.


Bruce


On 22/03/13 9:56 AM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:


 I understand Bruce, and I I have tired to make allowances by moving this to email.

Ideally I would like to handle these discussions at an IRC meeting, as the turn around (and review process) is far more efficient.
 

We are are at the two week mark here, what would be considered sufficient time (perhaps two weekends?).

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

jody.garnett
Enjoy your trip Bruce .. If you don't have time (for whatever reason) you can always vote: +0

This is "the default" vote if we don't hear from someone, so if you know you cannot take part in the review of GeoMoose then this would save us from waiting for you.
-- 
Jody Garnett

On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Re: [Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I’m preparing for an intensive trip, leaving shortly.

I’ll try to look at the status next week.

If you don’t see a response from me in that time it won’t be coming before the end of April.

Don’t hold up the process for me... (...not that you would ;-) )


On a related note, moving this process to email is IMHO a good move. It allows time to review and reflect.


Bruce


On 22/03/13 9:56 AM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:


 I understand Bruce, and I I have tired to make allowances by moving this to email.

Ideally I would like to handle these discussions at an IRC meeting, as the turn around (and review process) is far more efficient.
 

We are are at the two week mark here, what would be considered sufficient time (perhaps two weekends?).


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

Bruce Bannerman-3
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
+1


I can see what appear to be good open processes for contribution, PSC etc.

The documented meeting notes over an extended period of time supports this.

The issue of license is difficult to follow through the document. It would be better to get this clarified on the wiki with a *very* clear statement. I noted Cameron's concerns on documentation license and Bob's response. I personally would have preferred to see an appropriate Creative Commons license for the documentation.

The wiki page [1] link to ticket #180 actually points to #190.

Bruce

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist


From: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:55:22 +1100
To: Incubator <Incubator@...>
Subject: [Incubator] Vote: GeoMoose Graduation



 I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from the incubation process.

(I will need a second, and then you can reply to this email, if you like you can review the discussion last week for the incubation checklist and my notes when mentoring the project)

--
Jody Garnett

 

------ End of Forwarded Message


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

ATT00001.txt (208 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
* While not a show stopper, I'd expect that code contributors should be
able to contribute code under the project's MIT license, rather than
being required to contribute under public domain.
This appears to be catered for - reading the text of the documentation patch ticket (mentioned in the checklist):

http://trac.osgeo.org/geomoose/ticket/180 
If you donated a file to the GeoMoose project, using an MIT license, the comment block would include:
Copyright (c) 2013, <YourName?> (<YourCompanyName?>)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Jody 


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation - community

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by blammo
On 22/03/2013 2:48 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:

>>> >>  (I think the project is getting close, but not quite ready to
>>> >>  complete
>>> >>  graduation)
>>> >>  
>>> >>  1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project, from 5
>>> >>  organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable number
>>> >>  for a maturing project if the organisations are independent of
>>> >>  each other.
>>> >>  However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these developers and
>>> >>  organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored by the
>>> >>  one agency?
> [bob.b said . . .] each agency/company is sponsoring the individuals as listed here:http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GeoMoose_Incubation_Status
>
> No one agency or company has control of the project.  Some work is sponsored while others are project handbacks from specific projects offered up via the PSC for adding improvements to GeoMoose.  Improvements to the project have come from each of the committers home organizations in the form of donated time, as well as from formal improvement projects from each organization.
>
Bob, this doesn't answer my question.
I'm interested to understand if any of the organisations contracts work
to another of the organisations.
Eg: Does the City of Saint Paul contract work to SharedGeo?
Are there are any other similar financial relationships between
organisations?


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation - community

blammo
Cameron,
[bob.b said . . .]
Ok, I admit I went completely another direction with my original answer.

To answer your clarification on the question below, yes, the cross pollination exists for many of the PSC and list members.  The City originally issued the software as a Open Source product and it has since gotten it's own legs under itself.  The City of Saint Paul is actually the odd duck in the equation, since it started the process.  The relationship currently is in the project guidance areas (my time right this minute) as well as suggestion of new capabilities.  SharedGeo goes out of it's way to describes itself as a Commercial support organization for GeoMoose (among other OSGeo products) with members on the PSC, the same goes for Houston Engineering, which has been a long time implementer of the GeoMoose software for it's clients, which are currently spread out across the US.  Other PSC members are involved from the Oregon Washington US states area of the US as a consortium of Counties that use the Software.  These PCS members bring Contracted work into the process as w
 ell as subsidizing other ideas offered up on the Email Lists from other PSCs/Developers and general members of the list.  There is also a PSC member based in Canada that is a long time user of the software and has contributed back to the Core code base, as well as acted as a contractor for specific development ideas from his local client list.

Does this answer your question better?

Bobb



>>  
>>  On 22/03/2013 2:48 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
>>  >>> >>  (I think the project is getting close, but not quite
>>  ready to
>>  >>> >> complete
>>  >>> >>  graduation)
>>  >>> >>
>>  >>> >>  1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project,
>>  from 5
>>  >>> >> organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable
>>  number
>>  >>> >> for a maturing project if the organisations are
>>  independent of
>>  >>> >> each other.
>>  >>> >>  However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these
>>  developers and
>>  >>> >> organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored
>>  by the
>>  >>> >> one agency?
>>  > [bob.b said . . .] each agency/company is sponsoring the
>>  individuals
>>  > as listed
>>  >
>>  here:http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GeoMoose_Incubation_S
>>  tatus
>>  >
>>  > No one agency or company has control of the project.  Some work
>>  is sponsored while others are project handbacks from specific
>>  projects offered up via the PSC for adding improvements to
>>  GeoMoose.  Improvements to the project have come from each of the
>>  committers home organizations in the form of donated time, as
>>  well as from formal improvement projects from each organization.
>>  >
>>  Bob, this doesn't answer my question.
>>  I'm interested to understand if any of the organisations
>>  contracts work to another of the organisations.
>>  Eg: Does the City of Saint Paul contract work to SharedGeo?
>>  Are there are any other similar financial relationships between
>>  organisations?
>>  
>>  
>>  --
>>  Cameron Shorter
>>  Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>  Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>  Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>  
>>  Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>  Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>  http://www.lisasoft.com
>>  


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation - community

Cameron Shorter
Thanks Bob, that answers my question.
Namely there is a funding trail of:
(multiple gov agency sponsors) => (multiple system integrators) => (code)

Once the following tickets have been actioned, I'll be ready to vote
positively for graduation:
http://trac.osgeo.org/geomoose/ticket/179
http://trac.osgeo.org/geomoose/ticket/180

On 23/03/2013 6:47 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
> Cameron,
> [bob.b said . . .]
> Ok, I admit I went completely another direction with my original answer.
>
> To answer your clarification on the question below, yes, the cross pollination exists for many of the PSC and list members.  The City originally issued the software as a Open Source product and it has since gotten it's own legs under itself.  The City of Saint Paul is actually the odd duck in the equation, since it started the process.  The relationship currently is in the project guidance areas (my time right this minute) as well as suggestion of new capabilities.  SharedGeo goes out of it's way to describes itself as a Commercial support organization for GeoMoose (among other OSGeo products) with members on the PSC, the same goes for Houston Engineering, which has been a long time implementer of the GeoMoose software for it's clients, which are currently spread out across the US.  Other PSC members are involved from the Oregon Washington US states area of the US as a consortium of Counties that use the Software.  These PCS members bring Contracted work into the process as
  well as subsidizing other ideas offered up on the Email Lists from other PSCs/Developers and general members of the list.  There is also a PSC member based in Canada that is a long time user of the software and has contributed back to the Core code base, as well as acted as a contractor for specific development ideas from his local client list.

>
> Does this answer your question better?
>
> Bobb
>
>
>
>>>  
>>>   On 22/03/2013 2:48 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
>>>   >>> >>  (I think the project is getting close, but not quite
>>>   ready to
>>>   >>> >> complete
>>>   >>> >>  graduation)
>>>   >>> >>
>>>   >>> >>  1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project,
>>>   from 5
>>>   >>> >> organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable
>>>   number
>>>   >>> >> for a maturing project if the organisations are
>>>   independent of
>>>   >>> >> each other.
>>>   >>> >>  However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these
>>>   developers and
>>>   >>> >> organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored
>>>   by the
>>>   >>> >> one agency?
>>>   > [bob.b said . . .] each agency/company is sponsoring the
>>>   individuals
>>>   > as listed
>>>   >
>>>   here:http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/GeoMoose_Incubation_S
>>>   tatus
>>>   >
>>>   > No one agency or company has control of the project.  Some work
>>>   is sponsored while others are project handbacks from specific
>>>   projects offered up via the PSC for adding improvements to
>>>   GeoMoose.  Improvements to the project have come from each of the
>>>   committers home organizations in the form of donated time, as
>>>   well as from formal improvement projects from each organization.
>>>   >
>>>   Bob, this doesn't answer my question.
>>>   I'm interested to understand if any of the organisations
>>>   contracts work to another of the organisations.
>>>   Eg: Does the City of Saint Paul contract work to SharedGeo?
>>>   Are there are any other similar financial relationships between
>>>   organisations?
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   --
>>>   Cameron Shorter
>>>   Geospatial Solutions Manager
>>>   Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>>>   Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>>  
>>>   Think Globally, Fix Locally
>>>   Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>>>   http://www.lisasoft.com
>>>  
>


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vote: GeoMoose Graduation

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
I'm now +1 for GeoMoose graduation - I see that the tickets mentioned
below have been actioned. Thanks to the GeoMoose community for the hard
work you have put in.

On 21/03/2013 10:51 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Some questions and comments on GeoMoose after reading through the
> Incubation Checklist here:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>
> (I think the project is getting close, but not quite ready to complete
> graduation)
>
> 1. I notice that there are 7 committers to the project, from 5
> organisations. I consider this to be a low, but acceptable number for
> a maturing project if the organisations are independent of each other.
> However, I'd like to know who sponsors all these developers and
> organisations? Is all the work ultimately being sponsored by the one
> agency?
>
> 2. It seems there are still some of loose ends which are still to be
> addressed, and I think that projects should not ask for graduation
> approval until they have been addressed. In particular, Jody mentioned:
> * No clear statement yet on the licence of documentation? Reference to
> an email discussion about license, doesn't constitute completion. I'm
> looking for a license statement on website or developer guidelines or
> similar.
> * While not a show stopper, I'd expect that code contributors should
> be able to contribute code under the project's MIT license, rather
> than being required to contribute under public domain.
> * I see there are 2 outstanding tickets 179, 180 addressing license
> issues. I'd like to see these addressed before we consider the project
> ready to complete graduation.
>
> Documentation:
> http://www.geomoose.org/developer/index.html
> * I notice that core documentation is being stored in a RFC, eg:
> "Project Steering Committee Guidelines".
> * I'd expect that once the RFC has been approved, that the
> documentation is moved into the main documentation structure from
> which it can continue to be maintained. (I see RFCs as decisions that
> have been made, and then fixed in time, rather than current working
> documentation).
>
> * Link to "How to Release" points nowhere.
>
> * Project Officer: No one named yet. I'd expect a volunteer to be
> identified.
>
>
>
> On 18/03/2013 3:55 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> I'd like to make a motion to recommend GeoMoose for graduation from
>> the incubation process.
>>
>>
>
> On 13/03/2013 4:45 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Here is the checklist now:
>> - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoMoose_Incubation_Checklist
>>
>> Discussion is open if you have any questions, everything looks in
>> order from my point of view.
>>
>> A couple of notes from my time as mentor:
>> - the project decisions have gotten way easier to track, with a
>> separate email list and RFC process.
>> - the documentation license question was interesting (as we had the
>> same discussion for GeoServer) - the result in this case is the
>> documentation being covered under the same MIT license as the codebase
>> - code contribution agreement is handled via contributors donating
>> work into the public domain (there are two outstanding trace issues
>> to patch the developers guide)
>> - provenance review did not turn up anything special, sample data was
>> credited or replaced with toy data
>> - project officer is TBD (and can be nominated when we send the
>> project up to the board for approval)
>>
>
>


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator