| 07:12:00 | TylerM: | hi all |
| 07:12:45 | FrankW: | Good morning TylerM. |
| 07:12:56 | TylerM: | hi FrankW, still up? ; ) |
| 07:13:12 | FrankW: | i've slept, honest! |
| 07:13:19 | crschmidt: | Heh |
| 07:13:21 | TylerM: | heh : ) |
| 07:34:55 | TylerM: | seven: menus enabled |
| 07:41:32 | ticheler: | Hi TylerM ! |
| 07:41:47 | ticheler: | Got questioned by my mentor on the fact sheet for GeoNetwork :- ) |
| 07:41:49 | TylerM: | hi ticheler |
| 07:42:06 | ticheler: | Did you get a chance to update it and link it straight from the OSGEO homepage? |
| 07:42:28 | TylerM: | you mean this one: http://www.osgeo.org/geonetwork |
| 07:42:29 | TylerM: | ? |
| 07:42:37 | ticheler: | yes |
| 07:42:46 | sigq: | Title: GeoNetwork opensource Project Info Sheet | OSGeo.org ( at www.osgeo.org ) |
| 07:43:04 | TylerM: | ah, you mean to repoint the right hand menu to go to that page ? |
| 07:43:19 | ticheler: | yes :- ) |
| 07:43:30 | ticheler: | And also to add a link to the pdf flyer we have |
| 07:44:05 | TylerM: | where is the PDF? |
| 07:44:40 | ticheler: | http://geonetwork-opensource.org/GeoNetwork_opensource_20_Flyer.pdf |
| 07:45:16 | ticheler: | And these too ( for the DVD ): |
| 07:45:18 | ticheler: | http://tecproda01.fao.org/geofoss_dvd/ |
| 07:45:19 | sigq: | Title: GeoNetwork opensource ( at tecproda01.fao.org ) |
| 07:45:39 | ticheler: | and for the ISO image ( 2GB ): |
| 07:45:40 | ticheler: | http://telascience.sdsc.edu/tela_data/foss4g/GN_OS203.iso |
| 07:47:20 | TylerM: | is the iso the same as the above dvd? |
| 07:47:29 | ticheler: | Yes |
| 07:47:48 | ticheler: | Only the first is browsing online, the other is a download :- ) |
| 07:51:12 | TylerM: | oh |
| 07:51:14 | TylerM: | okay... |
| 07:51:19 | TylerM: | how is this now? http://www.osgeo.org/geonetwork |
| 07:51:20 | sigq: | Title: GeoNetwork opensource Project Info Sheet | OSGeo.org ( at www.osgeo.org ) |
| 07:51:22 | TylerM: | good enough? |
| 07:51:31 | TylerM: | the idea is people will goto the home page to get more info |
| 07:51:49 | ticheler: | Very good! |
| 07:52:10 | TylerM: | great : ) |
| 07:52:19 | ticheler: | Maybe make Geofoss DVD Geofoss DVD online ( !? ) |
| 07:53:31 | ticheler: | ( the geonetwork-opensource.org is still terribly slow... hope we can get it faster soon..:-( ) |
| 07:55:43 | TylerM: | how's this? http://www.osgeo.org/geonetwork |
| 07:55:47 | sigq: | Title: GeoNetwork opensource Project Info Sheet | OSGeo.org ( at www.osgeo.org ) |
| 07:57:02 | TylerM: | ticheler: we can change it to anything... just let me know |
| 07:57:17 | ticheler: | Liked the previous one better... |
| 07:57:40 | : | * TylerM tries 'revert' button |
| 07:58:18 | : | * ticheler thinks he's a pain to TylerM |
| 07:58:25 | TylerM: | ha |
| 07:58:27 | TylerM: | never |
| 07:58:30 | TylerM: | : ) |
| 07:58:35 | ticheler: | 8 ) |
| 07:58:57 | TylerM: | How about: |
| 07:59:07 | TylerM: | well,anything you want : ) |
| 07:59:19 | TylerM: | I just tried to keep it to three lines |
| 07:59:20 | ticheler: | my refresh seems to take time :( |
| 07:59:23 | TylerM: | but don't need to : ) |
| 08:01:33 | ticheler: | TylerM: did it change? |
| 08:01:55 | TylerM: | should have just went back to the previous one you liked better... |
| 08:02:00 | TylerM: | just a second, trying one more thing |
| 08:04:46 | ticheler: | TylerM: Heading home :- ) |
| 08:04:58 | TylerM: | one more try! : ) |
| 08:05:08 | ticheler: | Speak to you later! |
| 08:05:10 | ticheler: | Thanks for the help! |
| 08:05:15 | TylerM: | okay, no problem |
| 08:05:18 | ticheler: | Yes, back to the old one now! |
| 08:05:29 | TylerM: | see it when you get a chance - just changed... you will like ; ) |
| 08:05:29 | ticheler: | Good for now! Thanks again! |
| 09:39:38 | seven: | TylerM: Cannot see any menu. Have to be logged in? |
| 09:40:05 | TylerM: | not any more |
| 09:40:10 | TylerM: | it's all enabled by default |
| 09:40:12 | TylerM: | for all users |
| 09:40:37 | seven: | but no language buttons yet, right? |
| 09:40:45 | TylerM: | right |
| 09:40:50 | seven: | wrong |
| 09:40:51 | seven: | :- ) |
| 09:41:15 | TylerM: | not until 15th : ) |
| 09:41:20 | seven: | Did you think about having sub menus? |
| 09:41:38 | : | * seven wonders what happens on the 15th? Miss anything? |
| 09:41:43 | TylerM: | No, but we kind of need them when we replace right side menus too |
| 09:41:57 | TylerM: | 15th.. giving until the 15th to get main translations done : ) |
| 09:42:12 | seven: | What translations do you expect? |
| 09:42:16 | seven: | ...which languages? |
| 09:43:22 | seven: | I see that http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Portal_Translation_Status is unchanged. Are we using that to monitor translations or is it jusst me playing with myself? |
| 09:43:25 | sigq: | Title: Portal Translation Status - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 09:44:02 | TylerM: | i haven't went through to see where everyone is at yet |
| 09:44:12 | seven: | OK. |
| 09:53:39 | zool: | they should be talking about INSPIRE in stb parliament building now |
| 09:53:49 | zool: | the vote is today http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+AGENDA+20070212+SIT+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN |
| 09:53:51 | sigq: | Title: Final draft agenda : Monday 12 February 2007 ( at www.europarl.europa.eu ) |
| 09:53:58 | zool: | i wish i could do something |
| 09:54:21 | zool: | i am going to analyse the shit out of these inspire metadata profile documents to get my angst out |
| 09:55:49 | zool: | it argh argh argh |
| 09:55:56 | zool: | its so broken |
| 09:56:26 | zool: | ( the european process, not the metadata profile, though i suspect that will turn out a bit dodgy too ) |
| 09:56:36 | : | * zool backs away from the keyboard |
| 10:12:06 | TylerM: | frankw: a new ldap module is underway to allow adding users: http://drupal.org/node/117589 - not sure on release timing though I'm trying to find out |
| 10:12:07 | sigq: | Title: Need LDAP module to create new users | drupal.org ( at drupal.org ) |
| 10:12:52 | TylerM: | I always mention possibility of funding, though no one takes me too seriously it seems ; ) whew |
| 10:19:32 | Schuyler: | I have updated the OpenLayers project status on the wiki |
| 10:19:33 | Schuyler: | http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/OpenLayers_Incubation_Status |
| 10:19:34 | sigq: | Title: OpenLayers Incubation Status - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 10:22:12 | FrankW: | Thanks Schuyler. |
| 10:24:25 | Schuyler: | I don't know if there's anything to discuss about OL at the meeting, though |
| 10:24:43 | Schuyler: | I may need to just sit hobu down outside the meeting and get him to tell us what next |
| 10:34:22 | FrankW: | TylerM: Better than offering money, you should offer KK to help work on such a module! |
| 10:35:21 | TylerM: | frankw: right-o - okay! |
| 10:36:18 | FrankW: | Well you might want to talk to kanhaiya1kk briefly first, but a significant commitment of time from a reasonably skilled Drupal developer should be useful. |
| 11:11:18 | TylerM: | kanhaiya_kk: let's chat when you are in |
| 11:25:31 | FrankW: | Incubator meeting in 7 minutes here. |
| 11:27:23 | mloskot: | FrankW: are you going to talk about moss4g on it? |
| 11:27:52 | FrankW: | mloskot: yes |
| 11:28:05 | mloskot: | ok, so I'll be online if needed. |
| 11:28:16 | CameronShorter: | FrankW, I will be able to attend for the first 30 mins, but after that will be getting kids ready for school. So I appologise in advance for leaving early. I'm interested in the MOSS4G discussions, so if possible, could we put that at the top of the agenda. |
| 11:28:22 | FrankW: | Agenda: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/IncCom_Meeting9 |
| 11:28:24 | sigq: | Title: IncCom Meeting9 - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 11:28:30 | mloskot: | thanks |
| 11:28:47 | FrankW: | CameronShorter: ok - though I'm worried about that being the most open-ended part. |
| 11:28:53 | FrankW: | But lets do it first. |
| 11:29:54 | CameronShorter: | Feel free to do the quick votes first. I assume you can knock some of them off fast. |
| 11:30:41 | FrankW: | I re-ordered, but before talking too much about MOSS4G I'd like to talk a bit more generally about small projects, and projects still early in their life ( as is the case for MOSS4G ). |
| 11:31:06 | danm1: | FrankW: in the committers guideline doc, there is still one ref to the MIT/X license that should probably be replaced with <b>project-license</b> |
| 11:31:28 | : | * FrankW rushes to fix... |
| 11:32:26 | : | * hobu here |
| 11:32:53 | FrankW: | OK, since CameronShorter is on a tight schedule lets get started. Sound off if you are here for the incubator meeting. |
| 11:33:08 | : | * FrankW incubates... |
| 11:33:27 | CameronShorter: | Cameron Shorter, from Mapbuilder in Australia. |
| 11:33:45 | rbray: | Bob's here. |
| 11:33:48 | Schuyler: | Schuyler Erle, for OpenLayers |
| 11:33:58 | pagameba: | Paul Spencer ... member |
| 11:34:14 | danmo: | Daniel Morissette, MapServer dev and MapGuide Mentor |
| 11:34:33 | : | * jasonbirch is just lurking |
| 11:34:47 | : | * gsherman__ lurking |
| 11:34:56 | hobu: | Howard Butler, OL mentor and inc-com member |
| 11:35:11 | rgould: | Richard Gould here |
| 11:35:14 | FrankW: | OK our agenda is at: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/IncCom_Meeting9 |
| 11:35:14 | : | * mloskot lurking as well |
| 11:35:14 | sigq: | Title: IncCom Meeting9 - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 11:35:30 | FrankW: | First item is to approve the previous minutes: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/IncCom_Meeting8 |
| 11:35:31 | sigq: | Title: IncCom Meeting8 - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 11:35:37 | : | * FrankW lobs a bomb at sigq. |
| 11:35:59 | FrankW: | Are there any questions or concerns about the previous minutes? |
| 11:36:17 | FrankW: | Note, I'm trying to add mailing list motions at the bottom of the preceeding minutes for tracking purposes. |
| 11:36:32 | : | * hobu motions to approve previous meeting's minutes |
| 11:36:40 | : | * danmo seconds |
| 11:36:46 | rbray: | seconded, +1 |
| 11:37:07 | FrankW: | +1 |
| 11:37:10 | danmo: | +1 |
| 11:37:13 | CameronShorter: | +1 |
| 11:37:21 | rgould: | +1 |
| 11:37:23 | FrankW: | ok, motion carried. |
| 11:37:52 | pagameba: | +1 |
| 11:37:55 | FrankW: | CameronShorter would like to discuss MOSS4G, but first, I'd like to talk about the general concept of taking projects into incubation when they are still nacient, as MOSS4G is. |
| 11:38:28 | FrankW: | My original conception was that we would take projects into incubation that had already mostly proven themselves to be substantial and desirable. |
| 11:38:40 | FrankW: | But in this case we are looking at a startup project. |
| 11:38:40 | CameronShorter: | It is the young part of MOSS4G which interests me too. |
| 11:38:53 | FrankW: | Does anyone have comments about whether they see this as a problem? |
| 11:39:15 | Schuyler: | well. |
| 11:39:26 | CameronShorter: | I think we need to distinguish between Incubator and startups. |
| 11:39:29 | danmo: | I did see this as a problem when I saw that we were going to talk about MOSS4G and was waiting to hear what others think |
| 11:39:35 | CameronShorter: | and treat them differently. |
| 11:39:37 | hobu: | how would a nacent project meet our incubation graduation requirements? |
| 11:39:45 | Schuyler: | It seems to run the risk of accumulating SourceForge-style projects that dry up fast and leave littered husks on the website |
| 11:39:51 | Schuyler: | not that I think MOSS4G will do this, mind. |
| 11:40:02 | FrankW: | hobu: Presumably it wouldn't graduate till it achieved some degree of maturity. |
| 11:40:13 | Schuyler: | but it starts to head in a direction that I had understood we specifically wished to avoid |
| 11:40:27 | hobu: | "in permanent incubation" is not a status we want, I think. |
| 11:40:32 | Schuyler: | right |
| 11:40:43 | : | * pagameba agrees with hobu |
| 11:40:49 | : | * danmo agrees with hobu and Schuyler |
| 11:40:59 | FrankW: | One could easily imagine a project that starts from scratch being stuck in incubation for a long time. |
| 11:41:15 | FrankW: | Does anyone want to speak in favor of allowing startup projects into incubation? |
| 11:41:20 | FrankW: | mloskot? |
| 11:41:38 | mloskot: | FrankW: I think the question is not to me. |
| 11:41:42 | jgarnett: | Morning ( I am doing double IRC meeting( s ) right now ... so please ping me if needed directly ) |
| 11:41:43 | hobu: | Once a project is "accepted for incubation", it is now essentially an "OSGeo entity" ( whatever that may mean ). |
| 11:41:57 | mloskot: | FrankW: Personally, I don't see much difference between startup and incubation |
| 11:42:08 | CameronShorter: | I'd like to see young projects be offered OSGeo services, but not be associated with OSGeo - so that their migration process is made much easier in the future. |
| 11:42:09 | : | * jasonbirch would like to see OSGeo have a pre-incubation stage, where the project still needs to be accepted but goes into something like GForge and has no official status |
| 11:42:34 | FrankW: | OK, that was my thought too. |
| 11:42:38 | jgarnett: | I am not sure iccubation projects should have official status |
| 11:42:50 | pagameba: | they don't |
| 11:42:57 | Schuyler: | so the question is does OSGeo need a GForge with everything that implies |
| 11:42:59 | FrankW: | That we ought to offer some such projects our services without putting them front and center as "OSGeo projects". |
| 11:43:01 | mloskot: | May be pre-inc stage could be set for 6 months or similar. AFter this period, review can asnwer if it's ready for real incubation. |
| 11:43:02 | jgarnett: | ( but they have links on the home page; hense the conflict ) |
| 11:43:30 | FrankW: | jgarnett: that is also a point. Perhaps new projects entering incubation should not appear on the main page till the complete incubation. |
| 11:43:37 | Schuyler: | I feel that this is okay *if* we're willing to cull mercilessly should projects die out |
| 11:43:54 | Schuyler: | +1 on that last, FrankW |
| 11:44:55 | CameronShorter: | I'd like to see a GForge equivalent - doesn't have to be owned by OSGeo which offers the same services as the OSGeo. Currently I don't think it exists. In particular, the Bug tracking and wiki offered by Sourceforge equivalents are shit. |
| 11:45:14 | FrankW: | culling is hard ( IMHO ) |
| 11:45:14 | FrankW: | Do we want to make that a formal motion? That projects in incubation ( with existing ones grandfathered ) don't appear on the main page till they graduate? |
| 11:45:31 | : | * hobu wonders how many projects have graduated thus far |
| 11:45:41 | FrankW: | Intevation runs a GForge instance for geospatial projects. |
| 11:45:50 | danmo: | Could they still appear in the front page under an incubator category? |
| 11:45:50 | FrankW: | Two projects have graduated. |
| 11:46:18 | FrankW: | danmo: they could but once you do that folks are likely to judge OSGeo on the basis of there state. |
| 11:46:25 | FrankW: | And most people won't know what Incubator means. |
| 11:46:44 | mloskot: | I'm not sure what was real motivation HyperJohnGraham had when requesting incubation, but I believe we - moss4g - can live without it. Although, it would be cool to get some infrastructure support from OSGeo if possible. |
| 11:47:06 | FrankW: | I do believe part of HyperJohnGraham's goal was access to project services. |
| 11:47:15 | FrankW: | And part was OSGeo leverage to help promote the project. |
| 11:47:19 | acuster: | FrankW, hey frank! Can I get a quick response from you about your take on the FSFeu contrib agreement, to know if it's a doc you would be willing to work with? |
| 11:47:32 | spatialguru: | are there *any* timelines set for projects to graduate? |
| 11:47:36 | hobu: | Would this motion provide incentive for projects to work through incubation faster? Or, would it have an effect of quelling enthusiasm? |
| 11:47:53 | FrankW: | acuster: I'm generally good with it, but hesitated to do a detailed review till there is time to work on it. |
| 11:48:05 | mloskot: | FrankW: right, I see promotion seems to be vital here |
| 11:48:05 | acuster: | FrankW, I'll need to look at the doc in more detail to make sure it covers all the issues |
| 11:48:10 | FrankW: | hobu: I think it would encourage projects to complete incubation. |
| 11:48:12 | acuster: | FrankW, good, thanks. |
| 11:48:32 | jgarnett: | FrankW I can make the formal motion. |
| 11:48:49 | FrankW: | jgarnett: Care to word the motion? |
| 11:48:56 | CameronShorter: | The management overhead of incubation is very heavy for a young project which should be focusing on code. And we should not be promoting these young projects until they are ready to be used by users. |
| 11:49:22 | FrankW: | CameronShorter: I feel pretty much the same. |
| 11:49:43 | jgarnett: | "OSGeo should limit project visibility efforts to those project that have completed the iccubation process. These efforts include a link on the home page and conference materials." |
| 11:49:55 | gsherman__: | ouch |
| 11:50:00 | jgarnett: | I am mean. |
| 11:50:05 | : | * FrankW hopes that is present projects in incubation excepted. |
| 11:50:10 | jgarnett: | But it in a kind sort of way. |
| 11:50:16 | rbray: | Young projects need some visibility to gain life. |
| 11:50:38 | pagameba: | FrankW projects should only be exempted if they are making visible progress to graduation : ) |
| 11:50:40 | jgarnett: | The visibility committee can help project on handouts etc .. .but focus should be on projects that have completed iccubation ( or what is the point ) |
| 11:50:52 | FrankW: | pagameba: Whew - there is a value judgement! |
| 11:50:58 | rbray: | I agree with that. |
| 11:51:11 | rbray: | I was just worried about the no visibility comment. |
| 11:51:16 | jgarnett: | Having materials for the visibility committee should be part of the iccubation process ( we need to help projects make connections with all the OSGeo facilities - including visibility ) |
| 11:51:45 | jgarnett: | rbray - me too ( but it may pay to be tough; we are comming up on the 1 year mark ) |
| 11:51:54 | CameronShorter: | Our current projects going through graduation are stable projects that I'd be comfortable recommending. Which is different to a startup project. |
| 11:52:31 | FrankW: | I am not at all comfortable to withdraw promotional efforts from projects currently in incubation that are already widely understood to be "OSGeo Projects". |
| 11:52:39 | spatialguru: | Related issue .. If there were some graduation timeline schedule ( ie progress must made in 1 yr ) then it makes easier to manage projects going in/out |
| 11:52:45 | CameronShorter: | Eg: QGIS is a stable project, but MOSS4G still can't be run - it doesn't exist. |
| 11:53:12 | jgarnett: | FrankW - it would not be a bad thing to let those projects know they are getting "special attention" |
| 11:53:13 | rbray: | Right. Back to the gforge idea of pre-incubation |
| 11:53:16 | jgarnett: | and lean on them to finish faster. |
| 11:54:02 | mloskot: | may be it's a matter of understangind of incubation process and a project can be incubated if it's possible to review it's quality and usability, etc. So, the project has to exist first. |
| 11:54:13 | mloskot: | If this is true, then moss4g doesn't qualify at all. |
| 11:54:21 | mloskot: | and the situation is clear. |
| 11:54:35 | CameronShorter: | Based on track record, stable projects take 6 to 12 months + to graduate. But I'd like to be promoting those projects during graduation. |
| 11:54:36 | spatialguru: | Not having any timelines for graduation isn't helping : ) |
| 11:55:03 | mloskot: | spatialguru: right |
| 11:55:24 | FrankW: | Can I offer an alternate motion - "OSGeo will not identify and promote projects as being OSGeo projects till they complete incubation, presently incubating projects excepted. " |
| 11:55:37 | FrankW: | CameronShorter: You mean promote them during incubation? |
| 11:55:43 | Schuyler: | sounds all right to me. |
| 11:55:54 | rbray: | That is basically what we have been doing. |
| 11:55:57 | Schuyler: | whether or not OSGeo hosts GForge for startup projects is another issue. |
| 11:56:04 | spatialguru: | ..especially when we have a queue of projects wanting in, but they may have to wait indefinitely behind ones that seem stalled |
| 11:56:15 | FrankW: | Schuyler: agreed ... I'd like to leave that aspect aside for a moment. |
| 11:56:24 | FrankW: | note, we don't have a queue waiting. |
| 11:56:28 | CameronShorter: | FrankW, yes promote during incubation, but only stable projects should be in "incubation". We should allow preincubation for MOSS4G type projects. |
| 11:56:38 | FrankW: | Ok, I'm seeing limited support for the motion, so I'll withdraw it. |
| 11:57:05 | FrankW: | Are we agreed then that projects have to be "user ready" before we accept them into incubation? ( ie. reasonably mature ) |
| 11:57:18 | : | * danmo agrees |
| 11:57:21 | CameronShorter: | +1 to frank |
| 11:57:23 | rbray: | +1 |
| 11:57:25 | hobu: | +1 |
| 11:57:37 | sdlime: | +1 |
| 11:57:37 | FrankW: | ok that has broad support. |
| 11:57:42 | Schuyler: | +1 |
| 11:57:43 | hobu: | "kid tested and mother approved" |
| 11:57:45 | pagameba: | +1 |
| 11:57:51 | Schuyler: | hobu++ |
| 11:57:53 | FrankW: | On that basis I think we can say that MOSS4G doesn't really qualify to enter incubation. |
| 11:57:58 | jgarnett: | +1 |
| 11:58:10 | Schuyler: | with our regrets, of course. |
| 11:58:21 | rgould: | +1 |
| 11:58:29 | jgarnett: | ( heh GeoTools would suffer as well; but we are much closer then last year ) |
| 11:58:36 | FrankW: | What I'd like to suggest is that SAC may, at it's discretion choose to extend OSGeo projects services ( ie. svn, trac, etc ) to projects that have not entered incubation if it wishes. How do folks feel about that? |
| 11:59:09 | rbray: | I think that is fine until we have a pre-incubation strategy in place. |
| 11:59:10 | jgarnett: | I like that idea Frank ... having a sandbox is good for community spirit. |
| 11:59:15 | jgarnett: | encourages playtime. |
| 11:59:16 | CameronShorter: | I would like to see MOSS4G given access to hosting services which make it easier to move into OSGeo at a later stage. |
| 11:59:19 | danmo: | dunno... should we not have a special class of projects if we're going to do that? |
| 11:59:19 | pagameba: | I'm good with that ... its not a decision we need to make here, though, more of a general osgeo decision |
| 11:59:21 | FrankW: | This could apply to projects like MOSS4G or also to things like libgeotiff. |
| 11:59:22 | Schuyler: | what would be the downside of making it that flexible? |
| 11:59:40 | TylerM: | inconsistency |
| 11:59:48 | Schuyler: | go on |
| 11:59:49 | TylerM: | ? |
| 12:00:03 | TylerM: | if there is no formal process / mechanism for getting projects into this state |
| 12:00:19 | FrankW: | I don't think we need to make the decision here, but I'd at least like to know that there is no objection to it here. |
| 12:00:23 | TylerM: | it gets pretty hard to talk about it and make it feel open enough to everyone |
| 12:00:42 | rbray: | FrankW: I recommend we table a sandbox discussion for the next meeting. |
| 12:00:58 | TylerM: | My only point is that 'at it's discretion' is pretty lose : ) |
| 12:01:03 | Schuyler: | yeah |
| 12:01:04 | rbray: | FYI - I like that name. OSGeo Sandbox Projects. |
| 12:01:06 | CameronShorter: | FrankW, I think we should have some criteria for projects that want to move into the sandbox. |
| 12:01:09 | hobu: | I'm against SAC being the aribiter for giving a project that needs a home a place to stay. |
| 12:01:11 | Schuyler: | I can imagine some guid... right |
| 12:01:21 | Schuyler: | what CameronShorter said |
| 12:01:27 | Schuyler: | there ought to be criteria |
| 12:01:28 | hobu: | But I am in support of providing a mechanism to somehow do so. |
| 12:01:29 | FrankW: | ok, I'm not seeing uniform support for hat proposal either. :- ) |
| 12:01:51 | Schuyler: | agreee with rbray it can be tabled for next mtg if next mtg is not too long from now |
| 12:01:55 | FrankW: | ok, lets back off on the sandbox issue, and move on. |
| 12:01:57 | CameronShorter: | Criteria should be: Open Source, Open Standards, Geospatial, ... |
| 12:02:19 | FrankW: | CameronShorter: ah, ok, well I guess I assumed those criteria. :- ) |
| 12:02:48 | mloskot: | I'm not sure how many projects, next to moss4g, are waiting for a sandbox service, but if it's only about moss4g, then the project can live outside osgeo infrastr. before it gets mature. |
| 12:02:49 | FrankW: | OK, I'd like to move on to "Approving changes to the project status template". |
| 12:03:09 | rbray: | It's really a whole different process for bringing an idea to the table. |
| 12:03:56 | FrankW: | There have been a few minor editorial changes in the template, and the addition of the item about commiter guidelines addressing legal issues. |
| 12:03:56 | TylerM: | mloskot: there are some projects that the pending New Mexico chapter wants to bring to the table too.. that aren't yet developed |
| 12:04:07 | mloskot: | jasonbirch: I have new box. I'm installing and configuring my dev env on it. |
| 12:04:09 | FrankW: | Are there any qustions about the proposed changes? |
| 12:04:21 | mloskot: | TylerM: I see. |
| 12:04:24 | : | * FrankW suspect the meeting hasn't completely moved on yet. |
| 12:04:30 | : | * FrankW *suspects* the meeting hasn't completely moved on yet. |
| 12:04:34 | CameronShorter: | I'm getting kids ready for school now, and not watching fully. |
| 12:04:45 | danmo: | Looks good to me. I moption that we approve the updated Project Status Template ( V1.1 ) |
| 12:04:50 | rbray: | No questions Frank, the changes look good. |
| 12:04:52 | : | * hobu seconds |
| 12:04:56 | rbray: | +1 |
| 12:04:58 | FrankW: | +1 |
| 12:04:59 | CameronShorter: | I'm +1 to all Frank's changes. |
| 12:05:04 | mloskot: | TylerM: I just want to say that I'm sure John will agree to keep OSGeo healthy and not messed and get outside with services, than trying to get in the OSGeo now. |
| 12:05:39 | FrankW: | ok motion carried. |
| 12:05:52 | hobu: | whew. We did something : ) |
| 12:06:01 | FrankW: | Next item, is "for comment". The suggested http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Commiter_Responsibilities_Guidelines |
| 12:06:04 | sigq: | Title: Commiter Responsibilities Guidelines - OSGEO ( at wiki.osgeo.org ) |
| 12:06:20 | FrankW: | I don't want to approve it today, but I would like feedback now if any. |
| 12:06:41 | FrankW: | My intention is that after a legal review, this would be an official document in our Incubation Process list of docs. |
| 12:07:29 | rbray: | Frank, I think it looks good and would be willing to pass it by our lawyers if you want. |
| 12:07:41 | Schuyler: | I have a few comments |
| 12:07:45 | FrankW: | rbray: I was going to bounce it off Heather. |
| 12:07:54 | rbray: | ok |
| 12:07:54 | FrankW: | Schuyler: fire away |
| 12:07:57 | Schuyler: | is it worth mentioning "code submitted should follow the project's stated goals" |
| 12:08:05 | Schuyler: | maybe that's transparently obvious it should |
| 12:08:19 | Schuyler: | what about "adheres to project coding standards if any" |
| 12:08:19 | FrankW: | Schuyler: this template part is only intended to address legal issues. |
| 12:08:20 | CameronShorter: | I think the doc is good, but would be better if we could make it thinner. Less words = more likely to be read. |
| 12:08:20 | jgarnett: | Thanks for looking at this Frank. |
| 12:08:32 | : | * gsherman__ is out of time -- see you later.... |
| 12:08:34 | FrankW: | Projects are expected to provide a broader commiter guidelines docs, as shown in the examples. |
| 12:08:42 | jgarnett: | legal != coding standards or goals |
| 12:08:49 | FrankW: | Though I've never felt the need to specify that code committed should relate to the goals of the project. |
| 12:08:52 | Schuyler: | oh, this is just legal? okay |
| 12:09:05 | FrankW: | The "Template" section is just the legal aspect. |
| 12:09:08 | Schuyler: | ok, I'm off base : ) carry on |
| 12:09:16 | FrankW: | The document produced should be broader, as are the examples. |
| 12:09:27 | FrankW: | The template is basically the "Legal" subsection from the GDAL guidelines. |
| 12:09:55 | FrankW: | ok, lets move on -- feedback on the doc on email list also welcome. |
| 12:10:01 | FrankW: | Next item, Mapguide graduation. |
| 12:10:18 | FrankW: | As I mentioned, i'd like to have a formal motion to the mailing list, but I want a chance to discuss it now. |
| 12:10:36 | FrankW: | So, any questions or comments? We have a variety of project reps here today. |
| 12:11:35 | danmo: | You probably all saw my email to the IncCom list saying that MapGuide was ready to graduate, it meets all the criterias in the Incubation Checklist in the Wiki. Are there other issues that we need to look at before I formally propose MapGuide for graduation? |
| 12:12:10 | FrankW: | I'll say the only thing that makes me a wee bit queasy is that I think there is relatively little developer work happening outside Autodesk. DMSG is doing some, but that is mostly webstudio, not core. Is this view right rbray? |
| 12:12:30 | FrankW: | ( not counting FDO ) |
| 12:12:31 | danmo: | FrankW raised a point about the DWFTK being part of the source tree if it doesn't have an OSI approved license |
| 12:12:48 | rbray: | Yes, that is correct. They are working around the core. |
| 12:13:08 | danmo: | Well, Mapbender graduated with developers from mostly a single organization... so I figured that was not a real issue |
| 12:13:13 | rbray: | One of their staff is about to help with a significant core initiative though to improve our cartography. |
| 12:14:15 | FrankW: | danmo: As long as the DWFTK issue is being addressed, I don't see any reason it should hold up incubation. |
| 12:14:15 | cholmes_: | Hey, just got online for real, sorry I'm late. |
| 12:14:32 | rbray: | The DWFTK license is basically a source visible license. I am reviewing with legal again now but it all looks ok. |
| 12:14:53 | cholmes_: | I got the impression that MapBender had developers from a wider variety of organizations than mapguide... |
| 12:15:03 | rbray: | We could in the future offer a DWFLESS build if that made folks happer. |
| 12:15:07 | : | * FrankW too, if dominated by CCGIS. |
| 12:15:26 | cholmes_: | Maybe that was wrong, but to me wide representation for me is really important. |
| 12:15:34 | CameronShorter: | DWFL=? |
| 12:15:37 | cholmes_: | And I saw it as the main thing MapGuide had to do to graduate incubation. |
| 12:15:46 | pagameba: | FrankW DMSG is hopefully going to start contributing to the core soon, we are going to help out on the symbolization stuff |
| 12:16:00 | FrankW: | Note they do have reasonable broad membership on their PSC, which is quite encouraging. |
| 12:16:19 | danmo: | FrankW: when you raised that point, that made me wonder this would also extend to not including code in source distributions that may not be covered by an OSI approved license... i.e. Does MapGuide just need to remove DWFTK from it's SVN repository, or does it need to stop distributing it as part of the source download as well? |
| 12:16:24 | rbray: | Right the PSC is 3 adsk, 4 non adsk. |
| 12:16:35 | cholmes_: | But what about percent of actual contributed code? |
| 12:16:39 | pagameba: | gotta run ... bye all |
| 12:17:02 | FrankW: | danmo: I think we should review that, but perhaps not right here and now. |
| 12:17:19 | rbray: | Being honest, contributed code is probably 95% adsk. |
| 12:17:21 | CameronShorter: | rbray, are the PSC all active in decision making? |
| 12:17:26 | cholmes_: | I mean, I could add 5 more non-TOPP PSC members to GeoServer pretty easily, but that doens't necessarily indicate it will live on if TOPP goes down. |
| 12:17:31 | jasonbirch: | If you count web studio, the mix between DMSG and ADSK probably isn't too bad... |
| 12:17:36 | rbray: | CameronShorter: Yes |
| 12:17:44 | cholmes_: | I guess the main concern can be put that way - will this project continue of Autodesk were to pull all support? |
| 12:18:02 | cholmes_: | of -> if |
| 12:18:46 | hobu: | cholmes_: a great test, but unfortunately not measureable : ) |
| 12:18:48 | danmo: | Yes, I have followed the PSC in the last few months. Most RFCs and development come from Autodesk, but all members of PSC participate in discussions actively |
| 12:19:10 | jgarnett: | that is a good sign. |
| 12:19:14 | : | * FrankW agrees with danmo and feels the PSC has been quite successful and open. |
| 12:19:16 | CameronShorter: | rbray, what is your take on Chris's question? |
| 12:19:24 | jgarnett: | ( I have similar questions about GeoNetwork ... but I am still in lurk mode ) |
| 12:19:25 | rbray: | And I have to say the project is better for their contributions in the RFC process. |
| 12:19:28 | cholmes_: | Of course. But I guess if everyone that's involved feels the answer is 'yes'... |
| 12:19:33 | cholmes_: | then it's pretty much good enough for me. |
| 12:20:03 | cholmes_: | As long as they truly answer honestly, would answer the same if the decision wasn't the source of income or some such... |
| 12:20:14 | FrankW: | cholmes_: to be honest I suspect the project would languish in maintenance mode if Autodesk dropped it just because there is limited outside developer understanding of the core. |
| 12:20:25 | rbray: | Hard question to answer. I would probably leave adsk to support it. |
| 12:20:38 | rbray: | To much of my life wrapped up in it at the moment. |
| 12:20:43 | FrankW: | But then the same might be true of Mapbender, GDAL, etc. |
| 12:20:44 | hobu: | mapguide's scope ( and code base ) is humungous. That didn't stop Firefox from happening either, just took a while |
| 12:21:18 | cholmes_: | Cool. Note I'm fine with the answer to these quesitons being 'yes' - I just want to be sure they are asked and _really_ considered. |
| 12:21:44 | jasonbirch: | It certainly wouldn't continue at the same pace, but I've got enough invested in MapGuide that you'd see some new features funded from this source. There are other orgs/companies that are doing the same... |
| 12:21:45 | rbray: | cholmes_: Its a good and valid question. And a hard one. |
| 12:21:50 | CameronShorter: | rbray - I assume you have paying customers who would hire support if Autodesk were to stop working on the code? |
| 12:21:55 | cholmes_: | If the answer is 'it's decent now and will get better in X months', then maybe we should wait for that... |
| 12:22:07 | rbray: | CameronShorter: Lots of them. |
| 12:22:38 | FrankW: | The project has very substantial adoption, and I suspect that organizations like DMSG and other would be even more motivated to do core work if adsk dropped it. So I don't think the project would die at all. |
| 12:23:11 | cholmes_: | I'll admit that I was hoping there would be more core contributors to the code by the time it graduated. But if we don't think it'll die then I won't be one to block it. |
| 12:23:14 | rbray: | Yea I agree with Frank. The more I think about it the more funding I could find. |
| 12:23:16 | CameronShorter: | I think that paying customers = a strong future for the project, and mitigates the problem of only having developers from one company. |
| 12:23:35 | FrankW: | right |
| 12:24:08 | FrankW: | ok, I think we are generally ok on this issue, though it is a concern. |
| 12:24:27 | FrankW: | Any other discussion we want to have before the motion to graduate mapguide goes to the list? |
| 12:25:11 | FrankW: | Our next topic is FDO. Do we have a mentor-candidate for FDO? Danmo, would you be willing assuming mapguide graduates? |
| 12:25:34 | danmo: | I guess I could take it... unless there is another volounteer ; ) |
| 12:26:00 | FrankW: | Other volunteers welcome! |
| 12:27:16 | FrankW: | Well, baring anyone else coming forward, I will prepare a motion to incubation FDO after MapGuide graduates with Danmo as proposed mentor. |
| 12:27:26 | FrankW: | rbray: Will you be FDO project rep? |
| 12:27:37 | rbray: | Sure |
| 12:27:48 | FrankW: | ok, next item - QGIS |
| 12:27:59 | FrankW: | Are there any questions or concerns about QGIS going into incubation? |
| 12:28:08 | FrankW: | Any volunteers for mentoring QGIS? |
| 12:28:41 | rbray: | I volunteered on the list. Looks like a great project and I would like to learn more about it. |
| 12:29:26 | FrankW: | ok, hearing no objection, I'll bring forward a motion to incubate qgis with rbray as proposed mentor after the meeting. |
| 12:29:29 | FrankW: | ( to the list ) |
| 12:30:09 | FrankW: | one last item - |
| 12:30:25 | FrankW: | Per our discussions a couple meetings ago I had put a few items into the CN tracker as "Incubator Issues". |
| 12:31:17 | FrankW: | Those were lost in the transition, but I recreated four of them from notes in past minutes. |
| 12:31:17 | FrankW: | If there are new items we should address, feel free to put them into the OSGeo track. |
| 12:31:17 | FrankW: | Links to see open issues, and to add new issues is on the Incubator web page. |
| 12:31:37 | FrankW: | Lastly, does anyone have issues they would like to discuss today or that they think justify another incubator irc meeting in the near future? |
| 12:31:52 | FrankW: | If not, I'm inclined to mostly glide for another month or two ( at least meeting wise ). |
| 12:32:14 | FrankW: | I'd like to encourage incubation progress, but I'm not sure that meetings accomplish that. |
| 12:32:40 | rbray: | We should put Sandbox projects on the next meeting agenda. |
| 12:32:52 | hobu: | I would liike to have another meeting in a month or so -- OpenLayers is quite close, IMO |
| 12:33:01 | danmo: | About FDO: One concern I have is that FDO is a data access lib, serving a similar purpose to GDAL. I understand the architectural differences, and also that we have other projects with similar purpose such as MapServer vs MapGuide, but are we not creating confusion by promoting multiple alternatives for specific functions? |
| 12:33:35 | FrankW: | hobu: ok, meeting in a month, and including sandbox discussion sounds fine. |
| 12:33:49 | crschmidt: | 'sandbox projects'? |
| 12:33:54 | Schuyler: | we will try to have all the boxes ticked for OL by next month. |
| 12:33:57 | FrankW: | danmo: yes we risk confusion, but we seem to have firmly established that we will have "competing projects". |
| 12:34:04 | danmo: | i.e. do we need to justify having both GDAL and FDO as OSGeo projects before they pass incubation? |
| 12:34:30 | cholmes_: | well, GeoTools does similar stuff to. Though it's a different language, so easily explained. |
| 12:34:33 | danmo: | If consensus is that we are okay with having competing projects then I'm all good |
| 12:34:36 | cholmes_: | to -> too |
| 12:34:47 | cholmes_: | I think it'd be good to explain their strengths and weaknesses... |
| 12:35:02 | cholmes_: | In a clear way to new users, so people don't have a hard time deciding between them. |
| 12:35:20 | rbray: | I would agree with that. |
| 12:35:27 | CameronShorter: | Note: Sandbox projects will still want to have a full web presence to promote themselves. So we should be hosting their domain name for them as well. Eg: http://moss4g.org |
| 12:35:30 | sigq: | Title: Com.org - Only the best links ... ( at moss4g.org ) |
| 12:35:36 | rbray: | Less confusion = easier path to adoption. |
| 12:35:37 | FrankW: | I agree that a "project map" explaining and contrasting strengths and weaknesses would be good, though always a bit scarey to prepare. |
| 12:36:11 | FrankW: | I would hesitate to write a document comparing GDAL, FDO and GeoTools as data access APIs. :- ) |
| 12:36:33 | cholmes_: | I think that perhaps _something_ should be required for incubation graduation. |
| 12:37:05 | cholmes_: | Even if it's just a paragraph or two saying 'we support these formats', and 'this is our general philosophy'. |
| 12:37:06 | crschmidt: | Who/which project bears that responsibility? |
| 12:37:17 | cholmes_: | The second one to graduate? ; ) |
| 12:37:26 | rbray: | Ouch |
| 12:37:32 | crschmidt: | Wanted to point out the unfairness of that mechanism : ) |
| 12:37:45 | FrankW: | cholmes_: note that projects are expected to have the short "info page" handout with that sort of materials. |
| 12:38:20 | FrankW: | Those info pages are intended to be the short introduction to a project, but they don't necessarily make it easy to pick one over another. |
| 12:39:44 | FrankW: | I'm not sure if we will come to any concrete conclusion on this. |
| 12:39:51 | FrankW: | Would anyone like to motion to close the meeting? |
| 12:40:16 | : | * hobu motions to adjourn |
| 12:40:23 | rbray: | seconded, +1 |
| 12:40:26 | cholmes_: | +1 |
| 12:40:27 | FrankW: | +1 |
| 12:40:42 | FrankW: | Thanks folks! |
| 12:47:15 | jgarnett: | Thanks FrankW .. sorry I was split between this an a geotools meeting |
| 12:47:30 | FrankW: | jgarnett: no problem. |
| 16:02:28 | : | * crschmidt yawns |
| 18:08:15 | FrankW: | danmo: around? Would you happen to be an iptables guru? |
| 18:10:20 | gsherman: | FrankW, you need a guru ? or just a mediocre practioner? |
| 18:10:45 | hobu: | someone who would ensure their rule doesn't make it so we have to walk to the machine would be sufficient : ) |
| 18:11:13 | gsherman: | does that mean you are dealing with port 22? |
| 18:11:26 | hobu: | no 389/636 |
| 18:11:56 | gsherman: | oh |
| 18:12:01 | crschmidt: | just paranoia ; ) |
| 18:12:09 | crschmidt: | a healthy doste! |
| 18:12:11 | crschmidt: | does* |
| 18:12:14 | crschmidt: | dose |
| 18:12:15 | crschmidt: | i quit |
| 18:12:17 | crschmidt: | it's bedtime |
| 18:12:25 | gsherman: | you can mess with the rules all you want, as long as you don't log out : ) |
| 18:16:10 | hobu: | in our case, it i a rule to allow LDAP packets from our two OSGeo machines. ShawnB set us up to use iptables-custom ( this is RHEL4 ). He has a rule that looks like this for LDAP, but it doesn't seem to work:http://rafb.net/p/IpXfGe69.html |
| 18:16:11 | sigq: | Title: Nopaste - No description ( at rafb.net ) |
| 20:05:41 | FrankW: | Funky, the drupal wiki syntax doesn't allow level 1 titles. |
| 20:40:30 | TylerM: | frankw I think I noticed that as well.. I guess it assumes h1 will be the title of the page ? |
| 20:40:44 | : | * TylerM wonders if it's bad practise to have >1 h2 on a page : ) |
| 20:41:51 | FrankW: | I think that must be the rationale. |
| 23:36:35 | ChrisGo: | You guys run Nabble? |