Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Digital Image Processing - Libraries and Programs

[Rob Emanuele]

Hi Eduardo,

Have you taken a look at GeoTrellis [1]? It's a Scala based library for
doing many things geospatial, but with a focus on raster processing. It
handles raster data generally, but is being used for projects to manipulate
imagery, mainly by stitching together web map tiles out of large image
sets. It enables Apache Spark to work with raster data, so if you would
write your algorithms against the distributed collection (RDD's) of images,
you'd be able to scale your processes horizontally while running the same
code as you would against smaller jobs.

I don't know if you're already settled on a language or have language
requirements, but GeoTrellis is written and used in Scala. Scala is a JVM
based modern language that lets you write functional style code while still
taking advantage of object oriented concepts.

If Scala isn't the right fit for you or your team, and you want to write
python or native code wrapped in python, you could still take advantage of
Apache Spark for distributed processing by using PySpark. I've had some
success using rasterio with PySpark, although there are a lot less solved
challenges going that route than in using a GeoTrellis/Scala/Spark stack
IMO (as the maintainer of GeoTrellis). Good luck!

Cheers,
Rob

[1] http://geotrellis.io, https://github.com/geotrellis/geotrellis

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Eduardo Pereira 
wrote:

>
> Hello OSGeo community,
>
>
> I'm currently part of team that is developing a free and open
> source program with focus on fast classification of drones images. To
> achieve this we are going to use the objects and attributes from OBIA
> approach, Machine Learning and algorithms to auto tune the segmentation
> parameters. And also a batch mode for replicate the results for others
> images. If someone know a project like that, please message me, we would
> love to check it.
>
>
> We already have the metodology working, but before starting code it we
> want to search all the open source libraries and program that works with
> Digital Image Processing. Doing so we hope  the program be up to date with
> all the capabilities that the open source have and get better results too.
>
>
> We are trying to list all the libraries and programs that work with image
> processing, even if the program is been developing or not have the
> capabilities that our project need.  This is the currently list we have:
>
>
> - GDAL/OGR
>
> - Optiks
>
> - Terralib
>
> - Orfeo Toolbox
>
> - OpenCV
>
> - OSSIM
>
> - InterIMAGE
>
> - Grass
>
> - OSSIM
>
> - GeoDMA
>
> - TuiView
>
> - RSGISLib
>
>
> I'm sending this e-mail to check if someone know other program/library
> that isn't on the list, we would love to know and certainly gonna check
> with care the suggestion.
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Best regards,
>
> Eduardo G. S. Pereira
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Digital Image Processing - Libraries and Programs

[Duarte Carreira]

Eduardo, you are missing Whitebox Geospatial Analysis Tools (GAT):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitebox_Geospatial_Analysis_Tools

Duarte
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Jody Garnett]

A PSC is not required for any OSGeo project (even a graduated project) -
being inclusive is. The GeoNode project is an example in incubation that
forms a leadership team based on recent committers as I understand it. The
benevolent dictator model does not meet this inclusive requirement, Cameron
suggested a steering committee formed with one chair member with 1.5 votes
(to prevent deadlock).

The OSGeo incubation principles are often based on risk ... to users of the
software project. The "benevolent dictator" model, just like having a
project backed by a single company/organization, suffers from a stability
problem - what if the dictator or organization loses interest? By splitting
responsibility across multiple parties the project has a much better chance
of weathering these storms ... and the risk for users of the software is
lower.

I am sorry I am not the best at talking through the pros/cons of
the benevolent dictator model - perhaps some who feels more passionately
about this subject (or who has first hand experience) could step in.

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 12:50, Rashad Kanavath  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett 
> wrote:
>
>> This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no
>> I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our
>> foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that
>> the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration.
>>
>> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.
>>
>> I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true
>> way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions
>> (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a
>> provision for new committers to be added into the mix.
>>
>
> I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is
> not a good idea.
>
> If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should
> work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being
> the "dictator" way.
>
> Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be
> validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to
> validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with
> "benevolent dictator".
>
>
>> We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the
>> foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on
>> our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet
>> some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation.
>> --
>> Jody
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>>>
>>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this
>>> question:
>>>
>>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
>>> incubating projects?
>>>
>>> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>>>
>>> Background:
>>> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a
>>> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent
>>> dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated
>>> projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better
>>> legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be
>>> unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]
>>>
>>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>>> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>>> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>>
>>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>>
>>> Cameron-
>>>
>>> I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is
>>> definitely correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely
>>> open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best
>>> solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it
>>> stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me
>>> right, our model is certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here
>>> it is the most appropriate, and hence we will keep it.
>>>
>>> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many
>>> projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide
>>> whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case
>>> manifest with rasdaman).
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce, Peter,
>>> I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see
>>> one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.
>>>
>>> The Governance model includes a statement:
>>> "In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Jody Garnett]

When acting in this capacity I speak as a member of OSGeo (and not as a
boundless employee).

There are several aspects about our foundation that I personally disagree
with, never the less I try and respect the view point of each community I
work with. Personally I do respect your opinion on the benevolent dictator
model, I love the fact that someone is in position to take responsibility
and care for the project.

As indicated in my previous email OSGeo as a foundation really focuses on
being inclusive with the (possibly idealistic) notion of being open to a
new volunteer (or organization) being able to take an interest in a project
and gradually assume responsibility and governance as they become more
passionate.


--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 12:48, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) 
wrote:

> Jody,
>
>
>
> Despite the infinite respect I have for your opinion and the Boundless
> organization, sincerely, I couldn’t more heartily disagree. At least I
> think I am disagreeing.
>
>
>
> Open source is open source, there are many flavors, each one serving
> different tastes, and each with different paths if nirvana is to be
> experienced, or at least attempted.
>
>
>
> But open source is open source and geospatial is geospatial. Aren’t people
> free to take ‘benevolent dictator’ code and branch it to their interests?
> For certain projects to mature, they need to be spared the collective
> collaboration that also introduces the chaos of community. One size does
> not fit all at all stages of development.
>
>
>
> Copyleft, at the more ‘pure’ end of open source, seems far more ‘prickly’
> in terms of ongoing usability than benevolent dictator. Yet one might
> consider Copyleft the ‘true god’ of open source to some. I am more profane
> on the subject.
>
>
>
> OSGeo might want to rise to the occasion of a ‘big tent’ versus. . .
>
>
>
> IANAL, I am not a lawyer, nor a doctor for that matter. ;-)
>
> This world needs all the open source solutions it can get, from copyleft
> to benevolent dictator.
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
> *From:* Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Jody
> Garnett
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM
> *To:* Cameron Shorter
> *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept
> "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?
>
>
>
> This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no
> I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our
> foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that
> the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration.
>
>
>
> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.
>
>
>
> I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true
> way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions
> (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a
> provision for new committers to be added into the mix.
>
>
>
> We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the
> foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on
> our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet
> some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation.
>
> --
>
> Jody
>
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter  wrote:
>
> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>
> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this
> question:
>
> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
> incubating projects?
>
> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>
> Background:
> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a
> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent
> dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated
> projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better
> legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be
> unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]
>
> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>
> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>
> Cameron-
>
> I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is
> definitely correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely
> open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best
> solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it
> stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me
> right, our model is certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here
> it is the most appropriate, and hence we will keep it.
>
> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Rashad Kanavath]

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jody Garnett  wrote:

> This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no
> I do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our
> foundation to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that
> the projects be inclusive and open to collaboration.
>
> I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.
>
> I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true
> way, smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions
> (rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a
> provision for new committers to be added into the mix.
>

I agree with Jody that demanding a PSC for projects to be in incubation is
not a good idea.

If a PSC is required to join OSGeo. It must propose how a right PSC should
work.  Otherwise any project can form a PSC on whatever criteria, one being
the "dictator" way.

Project can decide weather to have PSC or not. If they have it must be
validated by OSGeo during incubation process. I hope having a checklist to
validate working PSC and how it should work can filter projects with
"benevolent dictator".


> We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the
> foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on
> our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet
> some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation.
> --
> Jody
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter  wrote:
>
>> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>>
>> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this
>> question:
>>
>> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
>> incubating projects?
>>
>> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>>
>> Background:
>> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a
>> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent
>> dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated
>> projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better
>> legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be
>> unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]
>>
>> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>>
>> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>>
>> Cameron-
>>
>> I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is
>> definitely correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely
>> open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best
>> solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it
>> stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me
>> right, our model is certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here
>> it is the most appropriate, and hence we will keep it.
>>
>> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many
>> projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide
>> whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case
>> manifest with rasdaman).
>>
>> best,
>> Peter
>>
>> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Bruce, Peter,
>> I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see
>> one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.
>>
>> The Governance model includes a statement:
>> "In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous consent based on a
>> free, independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should such consent
>> exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting vote."
>> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>>
>> This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to be
>> an effective model for many open source projects. See Eric Raymond's
>> "Homesteading the Noosphere":
>> 
>> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>>
>> However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo Incubated projects, which
>> have documented a "vote by PSC" as the defining governance process. In
>> practice, the PSC community debate alternatives, and if needed,
>> respectfully revert to reasoned advice provided by the "benevolent
>> dictator".
>>
>> Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote by PSC"?
>> I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with PSC chair being given 1.5
>> votes to break any deadlocks. I'd also be ok with PSC chair defaulting to
>> Peter (as founder), until such time as Peter resigns from the role."
>>
>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter,
>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>> LISAsoft
>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX)]

Jody,

Despite the infinite respect I have for your opinion and the Boundless 
organization, sincerely, I couldn’t more heartily disagree. At least I think I 
am disagreeing.

Open source is open source, there are many flavors, each one serving different 
tastes, and each with different paths if nirvana is to be experienced, or at 
least attempted.

But open source is open source and geospatial is geospatial. Aren’t people free 
to take ‘benevolent dictator’ code and branch it to their interests? For 
certain projects to mature, they need to be spared the collective collaboration 
that also introduces the chaos of community. One size does not fit all at all 
stages of development.

Copyleft, at the more ‘pure’ end of open source, seems far more ‘prickly’ in 
terms of ongoing usability than benevolent dictator. Yet one might consider 
Copyleft the ‘true god’ of open source to some. I am more profane on the 
subject.

OSGeo might want to rise to the occasion of a ‘big tent’ versus. . .

IANAL, I am not a lawyer, nor a doctor for that matter. ;-)
This world needs all the open source solutions it can get, from copyleft to 
benevolent dictator.
-Patrick

From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jody Garnett
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 4:30 AM
To: Cameron Shorter
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent 
dictator" projects into OSGeo?

This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no I do 
not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our foundation to not 
place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that the projects be 
inclusive and open to collaboration.

I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.

I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true way, 
smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions (rather 
than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a provision for 
new committers to be added into the mix.

We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the foundation 
more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on our community 
projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet some of our ideal 
criteria to be part of the foundation.
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter 
> wrote:
OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,

I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this 
question:

Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for incubating 
projects?

-0 from me, Cameron Shorter.

Background:
* As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a 
"benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent 
dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated 
projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better legal 
training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be unconstitutional 
according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]

[1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere": 
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
[2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
[3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
Cameron-

I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is definitely 
correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely open to discussion 
so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best solution this 
"benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it stands now - it is 
designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me right, our model is 
certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here it is the most 
appropriate, and hence we will keep it.

As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many projects 
run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide whether they 
accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case manifest with 
rasdaman).

best,
Peter
On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Bruce, Peter,
I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see one 
thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.

The Governance model includes a statement:
"In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous consent based on a free, 
independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should such consent exceptionally 
not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting vote."
http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance

This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to be an 
effective model for many open source projects. See Eric Raymond's "Homesteading 
the Noosphere": 
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html

However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo Incubated 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Digital Image Processing - Libraries and Programs

[David Fawcett]

You should look at OpenDroneMap too

> On May 1, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Eduardo Pereira  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello OSGeo community,
> 
> 
> I'm currently part of team that is developing a free and open source program 
> with focus on fast classification of drones images. To achieve this we are 
> going to use the objects and attributes from OBIA approach, Machine Learning 
> and algorithms to auto tune the segmentation parameters. And also a batch 
> mode for replicate the results for others images. If someone know a project 
> like that, please message me, we would love to check it.
> 
> 
> We already have the metodology working, but before starting code it we want 
> to search all the open source libraries and program that works with Digital 
> Image Processing. Doing so we hope  the program be up to date with all the 
> capabilities that the open source have and get better results too.
> 
> 
> We are trying to list all the libraries and programs that work with image 
> processing, even if the program is been developing or not have the 
> capabilities that our project need.  This is the currently list we have:
> 
> 
> - GDAL/OGR 
> 
> - Optiks
> 
> - Terralib
> 
> - Orfeo Toolbox
> 
> - OpenCV
> 
> - OSSIM
> 
> - InterIMAGE
> 
> - Grass
> 
> - OSSIM
> 
> - GeoDMA
> 
> - TuiView
> 
> - RSGISLib
> 
> 
> I'm sending this e-mail to check if someone know other program/library that 
> isn't on the list, we would love to know and certainly gonna check with care 
> the suggestion.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help!
> 
> - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Eduardo G. S. Pereira
> 
> 
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> 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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Digital Image Processing - Libraries and Programs

[Eduardo Pereira]

Hello OSGeo community,


I'm currently part of team that is developing a free and open source program 
with focus on fast classification of drones images. To achieve this we are 
going to use the objects and attributes from OBIA approach, Machine Learning 
and algorithms to auto tune the segmentation parameters. And also a batch mode 
for replicate the results for others images. If someone know a project like 
that, please message me, we would love to check it.


We already have the metodology working, but before starting code it we want to 
search all the open source libraries and program that works with Digital Image 
Processing. Doing so we hope  the program be up to date with all the 
capabilities that the open source have and get better results too.


We are trying to list all the libraries and programs that work with image 
processing, even if the program is been developing or not have the capabilities 
that our project need.  This is the currently list we have:


- GDAL/OGR

- Optiks

- Terralib

- Orfeo Toolbox

- OpenCV

- OSSIM

- InterIMAGE

- Grass

- OSSIM

- GeoDMA

- TuiView

- RSGISLib


I'm sending this e-mail to check if someone know other program/library that 
isn't on the list, we would love to know and certainly gonna check with care 
the suggestion.


Thanks for the help!

- - - - - - - - - -

Best regards,

Eduardo G. S. Pereira

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Jody Garnett]

This is kind of a larger topic than just the incubation committee, but no I
do not believe we should. It is a defining characteristic of our foundation
to not place many restrictions on our projects - but demand that the
projects be inclusive and open to collaboration.

I do not believe that the "benevolent dictator" fits this ideal.

I also do not think we need to stress the PSC approach as the one true way,
smaller projects that only wish to have committers vote on decisions
(rather than form a PSC) is perfectly acceptable - provided there is a
provision for new committers to be added into the mix.

We also have an outstanding request from our president to make the
foundation more inclusive. With this in mind we are a lot less demanding on
our community projects - which provides a way for projects that do not meet
some of our ideal criteria to be part of the foundation.
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 1 May 2016 at 00:44, Cameron Shorter  wrote:

> OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,
>
> I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this
> question:
>
> Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for
> incubating projects?
>
> -0 from me, Cameron Shorter.
>
> Background:
> * As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a
> "benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent
> dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo incubated
> projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone with better
> legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" to be
> unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]
>
> [1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere":
> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
> [2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
> [3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html
>
> On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>
> Cameron-
>
> I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is
> definitely correct. While our process is and always has been absolutely
> open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and technically best
> solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought rasdaman to where it
> stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by committee. Just to get me
> right, our model is certainly not the right one for every endeavour. Here
> it is the most appropriate, and hence we will keep it.
>
> As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many
> projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide
> whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case
> manifest with rasdaman).
>
> best,
> Peter
>
> On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
> Bruce, Peter,
> I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only see
> one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.
>
> The Governance model includes a statement:
> "In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous consent based on a
> free, independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should such consent
> exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting vote."
> http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
>
> This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to be
> an effective model for many open source projects. See Eric Raymond's
> "Homesteading the Noosphere":
> 
> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html
>
> However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo Incubated projects, which
> have documented a "vote by PSC" as the defining governance process. In
> practice, the PSC community debate alternatives, and if needed,
> respectfully revert to reasoned advice provided by the "benevolent
> dictator".
>
> Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote by PSC"?
> I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with PSC chair being given 1.5
> votes to break any deadlocks. I'd also be ok with PSC chair defaulting to
> Peter (as founder), until such time as Peter resigns from the role."
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> ___
> Incubator mailing list
> incuba...@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Cameron Shorter]

OSGeo discuss, OSGeo incubation, OSGeo board,

I'm hoping the greater OSGeo community will consider and comment on this 
question:


Should OSGeo accept a "benevolent dictator" [1] governance model for 
incubating projects?


-0 from me, Cameron Shorter.

Background:
* As part of incubation, Peter Baumann, from Rasdaman has requested a 
"benevolent dictatorship" governance model [2]. While "benevolent 
dictatorships" often lead to successful projects, all prior OSGeo 
incubated projects have selected "equal vote by PSC members". Someone 
with better legal training than me might find "benevolent dictatorships" 
to be unconstitutional according to OSGeo bylaws. [3]


[1] Eric Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere": 
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html

[2] http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance
[3] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html

On 1/05/2016 3:56 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:

Cameron-

I understand where you are coming from, and your characterization is 
definitely correct. While our process is and always has been 
absolutely open to discussion so as to obtain the scientifically and 
technically best solution this "benevolent dictatorship" has brought 
rasdaman to where it stands now - it is designed by innovation, not by 
committee. Just to get me right, our model is certainly not the right 
one for every endeavour. Here it is the most appropriate, and hence we 
will keep it.


As you observe, this model is not contradicting OS as such, and many 
projects run it. So ultimately it lies in the hand of OSGeo to decide 
whether they accept the existing plurality of approaches (in this case 
manifest with rasdaman).


best,
Peter

On 04/30/2016 10:47 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Bruce, Peter,
I've read through the incubation process documentation, and can only 
see one thing which I think breaks our OSGeo principles.


The Governance model includes a statement:
"In all issues, the PSC strives to achieve unanimous consent based on 
a free, independent exchange of facts and opinions. Should such 
consent exceptionally not be reached then Peter Baumann has a casting 
vote."

http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance

This is describing a "benevolent dictator" model, which has proved to 
be an effective model for many open source projects. See Eric 
Raymond's "Homesteading the Noosphere": 
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s16.html


However, it is not in line with existing OSGeo Incubated projects, 
which have documented a "vote by PSC" as the defining governance 
process. In practice, the PSC community debate alternatives, and if 
needed, respectfully revert to reasoned advice provided by the 
"benevolent dictator".


Peter, are you open to changing the governance model to a "vote by PSC"?
I'd be comfortable with a "vote by PSC, with PSC chair being given 
1.5 votes to break any deadlocks. I'd also be ok with PSC chair 
defaulting to Peter (as founder), until such time as Peter resigns 
from the role."


Warm regards, Cameron 


--
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