[OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to Geo4All Webinar on 5th May 2016 on Humanitarian Mapathons for Children

2016-05-02 Thread Suchith Anand 
Dear colleagues,

On behalf of Geo4All we would like to welcome you to the "Open Geospatial 
Science & Applications" webinar series. Thanks to Dr. Rafael Moreno and 
colleagues at University of Colorado Denver for organising the Geo4All webinar 
series. If you are interested to do a webinar for the Geo4All webinar series 
please contact Rafael (email- rafael.mor...@ucdenver.edu ) and he will be happy 
to discuss ideas.

Webinar details below:

Date and Time : May 5, 2016 (Thursday) at 1:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time (7:00 AM 
US/Canada Mountain Time)

Topic : Humanitarian Mapathons for Children

Presenters: Maria Antonia Brovelli, Marco Minghini, Aldo Torrebruno 
(Politecnico di Milano), and Tyler Radford (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team 
(HOT)

Talk abstract:

This webinar will provide an introduction on humanitarian mapathons for 
children, which represent a remarkable educational experience as they combine 
geography and awareness about our world, technology and humanitarian aspects. 
Following the successful experiences of Politecnico di Milano (Italy), the most 
important educational and technical aspects of humanitarian mapathons with 
children will be outlined. The purpose is to provide the GeoForAll community, 
and specially the teachers involved (at all levels), with some practical 
instructions on how to set up and run their own mapathons. The webinar is 
organized in collaboration with the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) under 
the umbrella of the United Nations Open Geospatial (UNOGeo) initiative of which 
GeoForAll and OSGeo are partners.

See webinar description in the Geo4All webinars page: 
http://www.geoforall.org/webinars/

Please join us here (PC, Mac, or Cell phone): 
https://ucdenver.zoom.us/j/350696659

Recording and slides will be posted in the Geo4All webinars page after 
presentation: http://www.geoforall.org/webinars/

For more details of the webinar series, contact University of Colorado Denver 
FOSS4G Lab at http://geospatial.ucdenver.edu/foss4g/


The background of this webinar is at 
https://hotosm.org/updates/2016-03-09_200_kids_map_swaziland_for_malaria_elimination

Thanks to Maria, Marco and all Politecnico di Milano colleagues for thier 
excellent work. They have been leading all our humanitarian mapathons (Nepal, 
Japan, Equador) [1], [2] and it will be a great opportunity to hear and learn 
from thier experiences.

So please join this Geo4All webinar on 5th May 2016.

Best wishes,

Suchith


[1] 
http://opensourcegeospatial.icaci.org/2016/04/humanitarian-mapathons-for-japan-and-ecuador/
[2] 
http://opensourcegeospatial.icaci.org/2015/04/mapping-response-contributions-for-nepal/









This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. 

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.

___
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?

2016-05-02 Thread Julien-Samuel Lacroix 

I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel

It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:

> In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is less about
> dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure
> that, as the project expands, the right people are given influence
> over it and the community rallies behind the vision of the project
> lead.

Another good one from (linked from the above):
http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications

> they let things work themselves out through discussion and
> experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those
> discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to
> an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is clear that
> no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone
> to guide the decision so that development can move on, does she put
> her foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be."


From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent dictatorship" is 
a do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or influence, to lead 
parts of the projects and where the "dictator" is acountable of its 
decision to the community. The key ingredients are the same as other 
governance :

- Be easy to contribute patches and features
- Be open on the direction of the project
- Be forkable

If someone wants to contribute a new feature, they ask the mailing-list 
and the committer responsible for this part of the software, not the 
"dictator", will approve or suggest changes. The approach is less formal 
than with a PSC, but still works the same.


This is of course an ideal scenario, but can be as open as a PSC, I 
think, as long as the project as a good "forkability".


Back to the incubation discussion, Rasdaman seems to have multiple 
committers and 2 main organisation behind it. What I would like to ask 
is, what's the "bus number". Is there a second (or third) in command 
that could ultimately take care of the project after the dictator's 
"end-of-term"? From my point of view, a PSC of 3, 2 being from the same 
company, is a small PSC and will probably lack a bit of variety in 
opinions. Is there any other key contributors that the "dictator" refers 
to when trying to get inputs and defer technical decisions?


Julien

On 16-05-01 07:29 AM, 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.

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Requesting services for librttopo

2016-05-02 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg 
On 05/02/2016 06:00 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I would ask if the project would consider joining OSGeo as a community
> project ? This
> requirement is minimal, we want some assurance that your project is both
> open source and open to collaboration.
> 
> Alex - are their any other projects we provide infrastructure for that we
> can extend an invitation to?

At least PDAL comes to mind. It also uses the OSGeo mailinglist
infrastructure and the download server for its release artefacts.

Kind Regards,

Bas

-- 
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Requesting services for librttopo

2016-05-02 Thread Alex M 
Probably, a cross reference of mailing lists, dns entries and current
projects should give us a list of potential "Community Projects".
This is the new name for pre-incubation stuff?

Thanks,
Alex

On 05/02/2016 12:00 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I would ask if the project would consider joining OSGeo as a community
> project ? This
> requirement is minimal, we want some assurance that your project is both
> open source and open to collaboration.
> 
> Alex - are their any other projects we provide infrastructure for that we
> can extend an invitation to?
> 
> --
> Jody Garnett
> 
> On 2 May 2016 at 10:00, Alex M  wrote:
> 
>> On 05/02/2016 02:36 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> this mail is to request permission to use the download area
>>> of OSGeo for publishing librttopo packages, and possibly
>>> an rttopo.osgeo.org domain and webspace.
>>>
>>> The librttopo project consists of a GPL(v2+) licensed library
>>> providing a standard-based topology API on top of user-provided
>>> input/output routines for storage. It was derived from the PostGIS
>>> liblwgeom library at its 2.2.0 version, from which deviated to
>>> drop PostGIS-specific dependencies and add thread-safety (not
>>> of interest for PostGIS proper at this time).
>>>
>>> The upcoming 4.4.0 version of Spatialite will be using librttopo
>>> instead of liblwgeom and the aim is to attract other liblwgeom users
>>> (QGIS, for example) so to eventually free PostGIS from the burden of
>>> maintaining a stable liblwgeom API. Having PostGIS itself use
>>> librttopo is currently not on the radar, but might be considered in
>>> the future if librttopo gets more development.
>>>
>>> At the moment librttopo code is hosted in the experimental OSGeo
>>> [Gogs service](https://git.osgeo.org/gogs/rttopo/librttopo) and
>>> has an OSGeo hosted [mailing list]
>>> (https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/librttopo-dev)
>>>
>>> The project is managed by Andrea Peri of "Regione Toscana" (primary
>>> sponsor for the library), Alessandro Furieri of Spatialite and
>>> myself from PostGIS/GEOS.
>>>
>>> Some more background info are available from [my website]
>>> (https://strk.kbt.io/projects/rttopo)
>>>
>>> --strk;
>>
>>
>> This seems to be a reasonable request from a project that is likely
>> participate widely in the OSGeo community (note we already provided
>> email and a git repo).
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>> Sys Admin Committee
>>
>> ___
>> 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
> 

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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Requesting services for librttopo

2016-05-02 Thread Jody Garnett 
I would ask if the project would consider joining OSGeo as a community
project ? This
requirement is minimal, we want some assurance that your project is both
open source and open to collaboration.

Alex - are their any other projects we provide infrastructure for that we
can extend an invitation to?

--
Jody Garnett

On 2 May 2016 at 10:00, Alex M  wrote:

> On 05/02/2016 02:36 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > this mail is to request permission to use the download area
> > of OSGeo for publishing librttopo packages, and possibly
> > an rttopo.osgeo.org domain and webspace.
> >
> > The librttopo project consists of a GPL(v2+) licensed library
> > providing a standard-based topology API on top of user-provided
> > input/output routines for storage. It was derived from the PostGIS
> > liblwgeom library at its 2.2.0 version, from which deviated to
> > drop PostGIS-specific dependencies and add thread-safety (not
> > of interest for PostGIS proper at this time).
> >
> > The upcoming 4.4.0 version of Spatialite will be using librttopo
> > instead of liblwgeom and the aim is to attract other liblwgeom users
> > (QGIS, for example) so to eventually free PostGIS from the burden of
> > maintaining a stable liblwgeom API. Having PostGIS itself use
> > librttopo is currently not on the radar, but might be considered in
> > the future if librttopo gets more development.
> >
> > At the moment librttopo code is hosted in the experimental OSGeo
> > [Gogs service](https://git.osgeo.org/gogs/rttopo/librttopo) and
> > has an OSGeo hosted [mailing list]
> > (https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/librttopo-dev)
> >
> > The project is managed by Andrea Peri of "Regione Toscana" (primary
> > sponsor for the library), Alessandro Furieri of Spatialite and
> > myself from PostGIS/GEOS.
> >
> > Some more background info are available from [my website]
> > (https://strk.kbt.io/projects/rttopo)
> >
> > --strk;
>
>
> This seems to be a reasonable request from a project that is likely
> participate widely in the OSGeo community (note we already provided
> email and a git repo).
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
> Sys Admin Committee
>
> ___
> 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] Requesting services for librttopo

2016-05-02 Thread Alex M 
On 05/02/2016 02:36 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> Hi all,
> this mail is to request permission to use the download area
> of OSGeo for publishing librttopo packages, and possibly
> an rttopo.osgeo.org domain and webspace.
> 
> The librttopo project consists of a GPL(v2+) licensed library
> providing a standard-based topology API on top of user-provided
> input/output routines for storage. It was derived from the PostGIS
> liblwgeom library at its 2.2.0 version, from which deviated to
> drop PostGIS-specific dependencies and add thread-safety (not
> of interest for PostGIS proper at this time).
> 
> The upcoming 4.4.0 version of Spatialite will be using librttopo
> instead of liblwgeom and the aim is to attract other liblwgeom users
> (QGIS, for example) so to eventually free PostGIS from the burden of
> maintaining a stable liblwgeom API. Having PostGIS itself use
> librttopo is currently not on the radar, but might be considered in
> the future if librttopo gets more development.
> 
> At the moment librttopo code is hosted in the experimental OSGeo
> [Gogs service](https://git.osgeo.org/gogs/rttopo/librttopo) and
> has an OSGeo hosted [mailing list]
> (https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/librttopo-dev)
> 
> The project is managed by Andrea Peri of "Regione Toscana" (primary
> sponsor for the library), Alessandro Furieri of Spatialite and
> myself from PostGIS/GEOS.
> 
> Some more background info are available from [my website]
> (https://strk.kbt.io/projects/rttopo)
> 
> --strk; 


This seems to be a reasonable request from a project that is likely
participate widely in the OSGeo community (note we already provided
email and a git repo).

+1

Thanks,
Alex
Sys Admin Committee

___
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?

2016-05-02 Thread Jody Garnett 
Since this particular topic is a hard discussion (with a projects status in
our community on the line) I do not wish to replay it for an audience.
OSGeo as an organization is responsible for fostering projects; working
through these issues needs to be supportive.

In incubation we try and tackle these topics on the incubation email list
(volunteers welcome - projects are waiting to join our foundation). For
sensitive topics each project has a mentor, a volunteer from OSGeo such as
yourself, to help project teams with these sometimes difficult ideas.

If you would like a panel discussion with project leads on how each project
does open source I would be game. A strength of OSGeo is that we have the
flexibility for a wide range of approaches.

--
Jody Garnett

On 2 May 2016 at 02:30, Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) <
gert-...@osgeo.nl> wrote:

> Hi Jody and others,
>
> Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice subject
> for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August at FOSS4G
> in Bonn.
> If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can
> see if we can fit this in the program)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gert-Jan
>
>
>
>
> Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:
>
>> 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":
>>>

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

2016-05-02 Thread Margherita Di Leo 
Hi,

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Hogan, Patrick (ARC-PX) <
patrick.ho...@nasa.gov> 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
>
>
>
I tend to agree with Patrick's position. I think what matters in the end is
the license the code is released, as long as forking is allowed, whether is
a committee or a single person taking decisions about developing may lead
or may not to a successful project according to several factors, one being
the leader, but also the quality of the product, the competitors on the
market and so on.. there are so many variables involved, that excluding a
project only based on that seems to me a little shortsighted (no offense
intended). Also, wording is important! no one loves dictators!! But
everyone love people who take responsibility and accountability for their
job.

My two cents

-- 
Margherita Di Leo
___
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?

2016-05-02 Thread Helena Mitasova 
Before commenting further I suggest to put the paragraph that is being
discussed on top of the email - benevolent dictator sounds much worse than
what is being proposed.

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 sounds pretty inclusive to me it but it seems to me that it needs to
be reformulated - it does not say how do you measure whether you have
consent (the discussions on dev issues can get pretty messy and open ended)
- you really need to have a vote on that which is what Cameron has
suggested.

Helena



On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Moritz Lennert  wrote:

> On 01/05/16 13:29, 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.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Moritz
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




-- 
Helena Mitasova
Professor
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
North Carolina State University
1125 Jordan Hall
NCSU Box 8208
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hmitaso/
http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/

email: hmit...@ncsu.edu
ph: 919-513-1327 (no voicemail)
fax 919 515-7802
___
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?

2016-05-02 Thread Moritz Lennert 

On 01/05/16 13:29, 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.


+1

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

[OSGeo-Discuss] Requesting services for librttopo

2016-05-02 Thread Sandro Santilli 
Hi all,
this mail is to request permission to use the download area
of OSGeo for publishing librttopo packages, and possibly
an rttopo.osgeo.org domain and webspace.

The librttopo project consists of a GPL(v2+) licensed library
providing a standard-based topology API on top of user-provided
input/output routines for storage. It was derived from the PostGIS
liblwgeom library at its 2.2.0 version, from which deviated to
drop PostGIS-specific dependencies and add thread-safety (not
of interest for PostGIS proper at this time).

The upcoming 4.4.0 version of Spatialite will be using librttopo
instead of liblwgeom and the aim is to attract other liblwgeom users
(QGIS, for example) so to eventually free PostGIS from the burden of
maintaining a stable liblwgeom API. Having PostGIS itself use
librttopo is currently not on the radar, but might be considered in
the future if librttopo gets more development.

At the moment librttopo code is hosted in the experimental OSGeo
[Gogs service](https://git.osgeo.org/gogs/rttopo/librttopo) and
has an OSGeo hosted [mailing list]
(https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/librttopo-dev)

The project is managed by Andrea Peri of "Regione Toscana" (primary
sponsor for the library), Alessandro Furieri of Spatialite and
myself from PostGIS/GEOS.

Some more background info are available from [my website]
(https://strk.kbt.io/projects/rttopo)

--strk; 
___
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?

2016-05-02 Thread Gert-Jan van der Weijden (OSGeo.nl) 

Hi Jody and others,

Apart from the discussion here at this list, this might be a nice 
subject for a "topic talk" (a discussion on a specific theme) in August 
at FOSS4G in Bonn.
If annybody is willing to take the lead in this, we (=the Bonn LOC) can 
see if we can fit this in the program)



Cheers,

Gert-Jan




Jody Garnett schreef op 01-05-2016 22:05:

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