<div dir="ltr">It makes sense to me. Having followed this project and this list for a lot of years I'm really happy to see the energy that has been injected into Proj in the last couple years. I encourage appropriate steps to keep that momentum going.<div><br></div><div>Rich</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Howard Butler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:howard@hobu.co" target="_blank">howard@hobu.co</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Greg,<br>
<br>
<br>
PROJ has never operated under the aegis of anything really. The MetaCRS<br>
attempt tried to rally SRS-related software projects under an umbrella<br>
within OSGeo, but as I've mentioned on the MetaCRS list [1], it is a<br>
failure as an organizing principle for the software projects. We are<br>
ostensibly required to vote within MetaCRS to agree on a release, but it<br>
is unfortunate make-work that doesn't really protect the release, and it<br>
is a motion put forward to an uninterested voting base. I think it is<br>
time to dissolve MetaCRS as an authority at least as it pertains to<br>
releases and software project management. It's still a great mailing<br>
list with access to real expertise on coordinate systems (that overlaps<br>
with this mailing list, but not entirely).<br>
<br>
<br>
PROJ needs some kind of body for release organization and technical<br>
dispute resolution (we've never had one). A PSC will be a better<br>
governance situation than exists now for PROJ. The PSC approach,<br>
pioneered by Frank in the MapServer and GDAL communities, would work<br>
very well for PROJ. The PSC names I listed were chosen because they have<br>
been active recently (well, except Frank, who provides institutional<br>
memory).<br>
<br>
<br>
After Frank moved on, I stepped forward as the PROJ maintainer, but I<br>
know very little about coordinate systems. I just tried to keep the<br>
lights on and sweep the (documentation) floor. Thankfully, Kristian,<br>
Charles, Kurt, and Thomas have stepped forward to takeover and provide<br>
technical and academic heft to really improve things. Their PROJ efforts<br>
are the basis of the GDAL SRS Barn Raising effort <a href="https://gdalbarn.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gdalbarn.com</a>,<br>
and without their contributions, there wouldn't be any traffic about<br>
code styles, testing frameworks, or object hierarchies. PROJ has seen<br>
more activity in the past year than it had in the previous fifteen. Its<br>
renewal has been fantastic to watch.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Howard<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/metacrs/2017-August/000956.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>pipermail/metacrs/2017-August/<wbr>000956.html</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/31/18 4:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:<br>
> Howard,<br>
><br>
> I can imagine a few ways forward:<br>
><br>
> - We could just add the named contributors to the MetaCRS PSC and it might<br>
> be that only those interested in PROJ.4 vote on PROJ.4 proposals.<br>
> - We could form a PROJ PSC and have the MetaCRS PSC authorize it to make<br>
> decisions about PROJ.4 on a slightly less officious basis than normal PSC<br>
> rules.<br>
> - We might want to consider the MetaCRS "experiment" to have run it's<br>
> course and not worked out particularly well and dissolve MetaCRS other than<br>
> perhaps as a potentially mailing list for coordination of related projects,<br>
> and proceed with PROJ.4 as an independent project with it's own PSC, etc.<br>
><br>
> I'd be happy enough with the third approach. MetaCRS was mostly my<br>
> brainchild and I'm willing to agree it is not really a functioning thing.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Frank<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com">gdt@lexort.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Howard Butler <<a href="mailto:howard@hobu.co">howard@hobu.co</a>> writes:<br>
>><br>
>>> In the interest of self determination, I propose that PROJ form a PSC<br>
>>> with the following membership:<br>
>> No objection to the concept, but this raises the issue of whether the<br>
>> project is operating under the aegis of charitable nonprofit<br>
>> corporation. I admit to having no clue about that before, and I'm not<br>
>> saying it's a big deal, but clarity is good.<br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Proj mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Proj@lists.maptools.org">Proj@lists.maptools.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.maptools.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/proj</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Proj mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Proj@lists.maptools.org">Proj@lists.maptools.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.maptools.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/proj</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Richard W. Greenwood, PLS<br><a href="http://www.greenwoodmap.com" target="_blank">www.greenwoodmap.com</a></div></div>
</div>