All,
I think most comments on this thread have been very constructive,
focusing on the topic rather than the person. Thanks everyone. It aligns
with our code of conduct [1] which includes:
/"Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient.//
//We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do
our best to act in an empathetic fashion. We may all experience some
frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn
into a personal attack. ..."/
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/code_of_conduct
On 15/05/2016 11:22 am, Marc Vloemans wrote:
Peter,
With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various
commentators have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning
is either based on a non-representative and even faulty sample of
experiences/examples (eg Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality
and popularity in certain circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that
particular correlation to its project management.
In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up.
By the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything
about above correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing
Rasdaman to other OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which
no side-stepping the concerns raised can hide.
Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not:
all commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot
convince them with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted
to calling at least me and (hopefully not too many) others along the
way 'activists'. Wording that fits lesser democratic countries,
organisations and political systems. If that gives an insight into the
way you look at and treat stakeholders/community members with a
different view from yours, then I fear you have shown our community
your true 'colors'/face/intention....
That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere
in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in
an irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ????
Vriendelijke groet,
Marc Vloemans
Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <rdemanu...@gmail.com
<mailto:rdemanu...@gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
Hi Peter,
This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply
saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd
like for project governance, and mention some independent study that
claims your software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These
are bold, general and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to
understand in a more detailed way. Please site your sources.
Best,
Rob
On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann"
<p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
<mailto:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de>> wrote:
OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know
(and list) all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt
discouraged. Typical rasdaman contributors are interested in
design by innovation and not design by committee, and that
community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that wins all
benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc.
-Peter
PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow
principle that does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about
the ideals behind :)
On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance
models because I prefer to write code than worry about licences
or governance. But it may help if I share a some anecdotes
(which is almost data) about a couple of FOSS projects that came
out of academia when I was in charge. One of these you may well
have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library of
GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know
GeoVista Studio.
Both these libraries started out as academic projects that
solved a research problem, both were open sourced as a result of
the university claiming all the intellectual property of it's
staff for ever (so why not give it away?) in both cases I (and
James Macgil) were benevolent dictators when the projects
launched, it was a simple governance model that left us able to
get on with coding and researching and meant that things went
the way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people
started asking for bug fixes and new features etc while James &
I had actual jobs to do and wanted to spend time with our
families and go on holiday etc. So we got some more people
involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of lucked into
a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a
PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find
but is otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and
GeoServer managed (or thrived) with no input from me or James at
all. However GeoVISTA studio, only went open source grudgingly
(the PI's didn't want to give up control really) and never
really gained more than a few users because we didn't allow
other people to influence the direction of development (after
all the university/PI was paying for the development) and thus
there were only ever two or three developers. As BD I had no
real interest in attracting new users (previous experience had
taught me that's hard work). Once James and then I moved on to
other jobs development stopped (though apparently someone
downloaded a copy last week)
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/geovistastudio/files/>.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is
that to make the move from an academic to successful FOSS
project you need to move from dictatorship to committee run
projects. If nothing else it allows you some down time from
running the project while never needing to give up having a say
in the running.
Ian
PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance
doesn't matter if you have forkability but I think that is a
flawed view - but if it is true maybe we could just fork
RASDAMAN and be done with the discussion? :-)
--
Ian Turton
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
<http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
mail:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
<mailto:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de>
tel:+49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax:+49-421-200-493178
<tel:%2B49-421-200-493178>
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail:baum...@rasdaman.com
<mailto:baum...@rasdaman.com>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:+49-173-5837882
<tel:%2B49-173-5837882>
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat
quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
