Kristian Evers kreve at sdfe.dk
Fri Jun 1 03:22:21 EST 2018

> The PSC names I listed were chosen because they have
> been active recently (well, except Frank, who provides institutional
> memory).

Based on the activity criteria, I think it is only fair to include Kurt Schwehr
In the PSC as well. Over the last 6 to 12 months Kurt has done a
tremendous job on improving the robustness of the PROJ code base
as well taking on the dirty job of improving the overall state of the
So if Kurt is interested, I would like to nominate him as a
member of the bootstrapped PSC.


> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: proj-bounces at lists.maptools.org [mailto:proj-
> bounces at lists.maptools.org] På vegne af Howard Butler
> Sendt: 1. juni 2018 00:01
> Til: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>; PROJ.4 and general
> Projections Discussions <proj at lists.maptools.org>
> Emne: Re: [Proj] PROJ PSC
> Greg,
> PROJ has never operated under the aegis of anything really. The MetaCRS
> attempt tried to rally SRS-related software projects under an umbrella
> within OSGeo, but as I've mentioned on the MetaCRS list [1], it is a
> failure as an organizing principle for the software projects. We are
> ostensibly required to vote within MetaCRS to agree on a release, but it
> is unfortunate make-work that doesn't really protect the release, and it
> is a motion put forward to an uninterested voting base. I think it is
> time to dissolve MetaCRS as an authority at least as it pertains to
> releases and software project management. It's still a great mailing
> list with access to real expertise on coordinate systems (that overlaps
> with this mailing list, but not entirely).
> PROJ needs some kind of body for release organization and technical
> dispute resolution (we've never had one). A PSC will be a better
> governance situation than exists now for PROJ. The PSC approach,
> pioneered by Frank in the MapServer and GDAL communities, would work
> very well for PROJ. The PSC names I listed were chosen because they have
> been active recently (well, except Frank, who provides institutional
> memory).
> After Frank moved on, I stepped forward as the PROJ maintainer, but I
> know very little about coordinate systems. I just tried to keep the
> lights on and sweep the (documentation) floor. Thankfully, Kristian,
> Charles, Kurt, and Thomas have stepped forward to takeover and provide
> technical and academic heft to really improve things. Their PROJ efforts
> are the basis of the GDAL SRS Barn Raising effort https://gdalbarn.com,
> and without their contributions, there wouldn't be any traffic about
> code styles, testing frameworks, or object hierarchies. PROJ has seen
> more activity in the past year than it had in the previous fifteen. Its
> renewal has been fantastic to watch.
> Howard
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/metacrs/2017-August/000956.html
> On 5/31/18 4:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > Howard,
> >
> > I can imagine a few ways forward:
> >
> >  - We could just add the named contributors to the MetaCRS PSC and it
> might
> > be that only those interested in PROJ.4 vote on PROJ.4 proposals.
> >  - We could form a PROJ PSC and have the MetaCRS PSC authorize it to
> make
> > decisions about PROJ.4 on a slightly less officious basis than normal PSC
> > rules.
> >  - We might want to consider the MetaCRS "experiment" to have run it's
> > course and not worked out particularly well and dissolve MetaCRS other
> than
> > perhaps as a potentially mailing list for coordination of related projects,
> > and proceed with PROJ.4 as an independent project with it's own PSC, etc.
> >
> > I'd be happy enough with the third approach.  MetaCRS was mostly my
> > brainchild and I'm willing to agree it is not really a functioning thing.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Howard Butler <howard at hobu.co> writes:
> >>
> >>> In the interest of self determination, I propose that PROJ form a PSC
> >>> with the following membership:
> >> No objection to the concept, but this raises the issue of whether the
> >> project is operating under the aegis of charitable nonprofit
> >> corporation.  I admit to having no clue about that before, and I'm not
> >> saying it's a big deal, but clarity is good.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Proj mailing list
> >> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> >> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> >>
> >
> >

More information about the Proj mailing list