On 17 October 2015 at 21:34, Anita Graser <anitagra...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Sandro Santilli <s...@keybit.net> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 05:06:54PM +0200, Anita Graser wrote: >> > On Oct 17, 2015 12:10 PM, "Mateusz Loskot" <mate...@loskot.net> wrote: >> > >> > What about the projects which are already on Github? >> >> They hadn't wasted any effort, because no effort existed... > > Projects which moved to Github at some point spent effort to both make the > decision and make the move. Granted, no effort on OSGeo side might have been > wasted.
Let's imagine, all projects move to GitHub, then it affects OSGeo infrastructure which becomes obsolete. Also, for some/many, move to GitHub may be controversial, depending on actual (F)OSS-orientation of the community members. So, IMO, wider discussion is not that pointless. >> Anyway, the request is to the OSGeo board to clarify requisites of hosting >> for OSGeo projects. > > I'm trying to understand the direction this discussion is going since I > might not be aware of the full background story. Are you expressing a wish > for stricter hosting guidelines? Or would you simply want clarification, > even if that means OSGeo takes a very "everything goes" position? I'd like to clarify my part of the discussion, which began as informal chat on IRC, since Sandro called my name, here is the story: 1. PostGIS is considering switch to Git, so they started discussing git.osgeo.org vs GitHub. 2. Sandro prefers the idea of git.osgeo.org, so he started working with SAC towards setting up git.osgeo.org hosting, Trac integration, etc. 3. Regardless, PostGIS team is leaning towards GitHub. 4. Some of OSGeo projects have already moved to GitHub. 5. I started asking if Sandro's & SAC efforts to set up git.osgeo.org make any sense, if it is not going to be wasted energy - in case OSGeo projects stick to SVN or move to GitHub. 6. Sandro does not mind and has been pressing on 7. I pointed out, that it is not about wasting energy of an individual volunteer, there is more to consider, especially, if all stars on the skyp indicate so far, that just PostGIS (what is still unsure) is going to use git.osgeo.org Once Sandro has completed setting up git.osgeo.org infrastructure, who is going to maintain it? If SAC is going to inherit that baby, has SAC agreed to take it over and invest time on keeping it up and running? It is going to be one (or more) services extra to keep up to date, secure, monitor, back up, migrate, etc. Bottom-up approach is a fantastic thing, but it drags certain consequences that need to be considered. So, I proposed that we (SAC) should survey the Community about their hosting needs and ask if git.osgeo.org is something we actually need, if there are any projects interested in actually using it. If yes, do we need plain Git installation, Git+Trac or perhaps GitLab? If not, then why? If not, because projects prefer GitHub, BitBucket, etc. then perhaps OSGeo should explicitly allow that and, perhaps, let SAC to actively maintain organization accounts on those external hosting services. Unless, we as an established organization do not Wild Wild West approach, we may need to clarify some answers. Finally, after reading about similar experiences [1] at Eclipse/Apache, I think this issue is related to the recent "OSGeo is becoming irrelevant" thread too, so it may be something to make the Board concerned about. [1] http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2013/06/20/eclipse-github/ I hope it makes more sense now. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss