[Proj] PROJ PSC
Jeff McKenna
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Fri Jun 1 07:22:36 EST 2018
+1 for Kurt !!
-jeff
On 2018-06-01 9:00 AM, Kurt Schwehr wrote:
> I'm definitely interested. Thank you for the nomination!
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Kristian Evers <kreve at sdfe.dk
> <mailto:kreve at sdfe.dk>> wrote:
>
> > 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
> code.
> So if Kurt is interested, I would like to nominate him as a
> member of the bootstrapped PSC.
>
> /Kristian
>
>
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: proj-bounces at lists.maptools.org
> <mailto:proj-bounces at lists.maptools.org> [mailto:proj- <mailto:proj->
> > bounces at lists.maptools.org <mailto:bounces at lists.maptools.org>]
> På vegne af Howard Butler
> > Sendt: 1. juni 2018 00:01
> > Til: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com
> <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>>; PROJ.4 and general
> > Projections Discussions <proj at lists.maptools.org
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto:gdt at lexort.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Howard Butler <howard at hobu.co <mailto: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 <mailto:Proj at lists.maptools.org>
> > >> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org <mailto:Proj at lists.maptools.org>
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> http://schwehr.org
>
>
More information about the Proj
mailing list