| 03:18:09 | CIA-43: | osgeo: sab * r1606 /foss4g/2009/website/foss4g09_staticmatic/ ( 72 files in 32 dirs ): major update |
| 03:18:11 | sigq: | osgeofeed: Changeset [1606]: major update <http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/changeset/1606> |
| 05:31:04 | CIA-43: | osgeo: sab * r1607 /foss4g/2009/website/foss4g09_staticmatic/ ( 6 files in 5 dirs ): major update |
| 05:32:16 | sigq: | osgeofeed: Changeset [1607]: major update <http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/changeset/1607> |
| 07:36:50 | hobu: | pramsey: I think examples of dictatorships gone awry like jpeg are our counterexample |
| 07:37:12 | pramsey: | I was also thinking about benevolent oligarchies that work |
| 07:37:33 | pramsey: | pgsql is sort of like that... all the non-core patches are reviewed and applied by the core group, usually just by Bruce |
| 07:37:51 | pramsey: | the linux model Adrian will point to also |
| 07:37:58 | hobu: | Tyranny of the Doers |
| 07:38:06 | pramsey: | yeah |
| 07:38:10 | hobu: | regardless of governance model |
| 07:38:17 | pramsey: | that was where the geotools model broke down |
| 07:38:36 | pramsey: | module maintainers who disappear or who have other commitments can't support the code flow |
| 07:38:51 | hobu: | In our consensus-is-the-priority governance model, the veto is the relief valve that is supposed to stop the "fork pressure" from building up. It failed in this case and I'm interested to know why. |
| 07:39:24 | hobu: | If everyone were to just start vetoing each other, lots would still get done if they kept up their end of the veto bargain |
| 07:39:25 | hobu: | : ) |
| 07:40:06 | pramsey: | we don't have as many "affects the whole codebase" proposals coming down the pipe |
| 07:42:56 | pramsey: | I mean, in some respects mapnik is a mapserver fork, right? |
| 07:43:17 | hobu: | I think of mapnik as a mapserver reaction rather than a fork |
| 07:43:19 | pramsey: | incompatible technology choices and design goals, but it does the same thing |
| 07:43:35 | hobu: | fork implies taking the same codebase and starting a new project in my mind |
| 07:43:45 | pramsey: | right, it was so incompatible from the start that there was no point of forking, but the mentality that brought it about is similar to the mentality that split geotools |
| 07:44:25 | pramsey: | from a "pragmatic" point of view, the solution to the mapnik problem was not a new piece of software |
| 07:44:31 | hobu: | Yes, but Artem had the stones to think he could start from scratch and do it better ; ) I'm happy he did, frankly. It's been good pressure on MapServer |
| 07:44:31 | pramsey: | it was an enhancement to mapserver |
| 07:45:04 | hobu: | It was a lot of enhancements... AGG rendering, XML mapfile, a real object model, Priest-approved C++ code :P |
| 07:45:22 | pramsey: | a lot of technical religion |
| 07:45:39 | pramsey: | there were some technical religious wars in the geotools split, for sure |
| 07:45:43 | hobu: | AGG wasn't religion |
| 07:46:03 | pramsey: | if AGG were the only issue, a mapserver enhancement would be the cure |
| 07:46:16 | crschmidt: | er |
| 07:46:17 | pramsey: | but it wasn't. there was an overlay of religion on top of the practical problem of having nicer maps |
| 07:46:23 | crschmidt: | is openlayers a fork? |
| 07:46:40 | crschmidt: | If OpenLayers isn't a fork -- and I don't believe it is -- than neither is Mapnik. |
| 07:46:46 | : | * pramsey is trying to explain the geotools fork by reference to a known set of other software. |
| 07:47:09 | crschmidt: | Sure. I don't think it applies to anything in the open geo space that we've yet seen. |
| 07:47:38 | hobu: | I think it is clear why geotoolkit forked. I don't think it is clear why geotoolkit should incubate at this time ( I think the app should be tabled ) |
| 07:47:49 | : | * crschmidt agrees |
| 07:48:21 | pramsey: | isn't sure why incubation should be tabled ( on the merits ) though graduation is a whole nother story... |
| 07:48:36 | hobu: | we tabled GeoMoose |
| 07:48:40 | pramsey: | we have a clear story about graduation requirements... less clear about incubation requirements. |
| 07:48:43 | pramsey: | ah, precedent |
| 07:48:55 | hobu: | and a few others too... "too small" "not mature enough" |
| 07:49:11 | pramsey: | deegree got in |
| 07:49:22 | : | * pramsey considers deegree veeeery similar to geotoolkit |
| 07:49:32 | hobu: | another consideration is whether or not there's a mentor |
| 07:49:42 | hobu: | geotoolkit is rather radioactive at this point. who wants to mentor that? |
| 07:49:44 | : | * pramsey puts his elbows up and fights for the next mentor. |
| 07:50:19 | hobu: | our committee is rather strife-adverse and I don't think is looking for a fight here |
| 07:51:30 | seven: | deegree has not shown any sign of progress on incubation though. |
| 07:52:24 | pramsey: | indeed, which is perhaps a sign they shouldn't have been let in to start with |
| 07:52:42 | hobu: | I do like the incubation committee grappling with the idea of DVCS though. I see it as something we'll need to adapt to |
| 07:53:06 | : | * pramsey wonders what the official release process is for projects under DVCS |
| 07:53:10 | : | * pramsey is too ignorant by half |
| 07:53:32 | hobu: | what if we were to change the incubation acceptance criteria to be "you must have a mentor who is a member of the committee willing to mentor you" |
| 07:53:44 | hobu: | instead of nebulous things like we seem to have now |
| 07:53:58 | hobu: | then if an app stagnates, we go after the mentor |
| 07:55:21 | seven: | We can do that anyway. |
| 07:55:44 | : | * seven remember ruffling some feathers a year ago or so. Just kindly. |
| 07:56:15 | seven: | I like the idea that we work this out to make a precedence. |
| 07:56:39 | seven: | Needs more dialog and understanding. |
| 09:58:38 | darkblue_B: | pramsey: a terabyte of location data for christmas !! :D |
| 09:58:44 | darkblue_B: | you made a funny |
| 09:58:47 | darkblue_B: | .. or three |
| 10:00:11 | darkblue_B: | I meant to take up your "ubiquitous knowledge divorces us from place" chat stream on the spot, but, too much going on |
| 10:00:19 | darkblue_B: | at the time |
| 10:01:19 | darkblue_B: | yeah - brady did a great job.. I agree |
| 10:01:53 | : | * pramsey still wants that data for xmas. |
| 10:02:18 | darkblue_B: | I like your ability to change the channel to humor when some hard topics come up |
| 10:02:26 | darkblue_B: | I dont like Big Brother, myself |
| 10:03:14 | darkblue_B: | history shows us that abuse is rampant |
| 10:03:24 | darkblue_B: | BUT thats not funny |
| 10:41:52 | FrankW: | pramsey: Got a second about the balance sheet calculation? |
| 10:42:00 | pramsey: | sher |
| 10:42:59 | FrankW: | You wrote that only the credit card debt is counted as a liability, not the GDAL restricted account. |
| 10:43:02 | FrankW: | I'm not sure why you say that. |
| 10:43:16 | FrankW: | Is the "Total Liabilities" field not 19319.34 in the copy I sent out? |
| 10:43:18 | pramsey: | I see total equit of $219K |
| 10:43:37 | pramsey: | and total liabilities of $19K |
| 10:43:44 | FrankW: | Yes, I do see the Total Equity line is wrong. |
| 10:43:45 | pramsey: | and total eq+liab of $219K |
| 10:43:55 | FrankW: | I'll resend with that fixed. |
| 10:44:03 | pramsey: | K |
| 10:44:10 | FrankW: | I wasn't clear if that was the issue you were referring to. |
| 10:44:11 | FrankW: | Thanks |
| 11:33:53 | sigq: | osgeofeed: Ticket #373 ( task created ): 2007.foss4g.org <http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/373> |
| 13:29:07 | jgarnett: | FrankW ping? |