<div dir="ltr"><div>+1 on Howard's suggestion for a PROJ PSC</div><div><br></div><div>and</div><div><br></div><div>+1 for Frank's third scenario ("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.").</div><div><br></div><div>Especially, I think we should keep the MetaCRS mailing list (or something equivalent), since I believe it to be the right place to discuss, develop and (to some degree) distribute test and validations material for transformations. I do not think we have seen much development in the IOGP GIGS test material the last few years, so it is probably not terribly well curated for the moment. Compiling an alternative, with wider coverage and in a more accessible format, will be of interest to any provider of transformation software, not just PROJ.</div><div><br></div><div>/Thomas</div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-06-01 10:22 GMT+02:00 Kristian Evers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk" target="_blank">kreve@sdfe.dk</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> The PSC names I listed were chosen because they have<br>
> been active recently (well, except Frank, who provides institutional<br>
> memory).<br>
<br>
</span>Based on the activity criteria, I think it is only fair to include Kurt Schwehr<br>
In the PSC as well. Over the last 6 to 12 months Kurt has done a<br>
tremendous job on improving the robustness of the PROJ code base<br>
as well taking on the dirty job of improving the overall state of the<br>
code.<br>
So if Kurt is interested, I would like to nominate him as a<br>
member of the bootstrapped PSC.<br>
<br>
/Kristian<br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----<br>
> Fra: <a href="mailto:proj-bounces@lists.maptools.org">proj-bounces@lists.maptools.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:proj-">proj-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@lists.maptools.org">bounces@lists.maptools.org</a>] På vegne af Howard Butler<br>
> Sendt: 1. juni 2018 00:01<br>
> Til: Frank Warmerdam <<a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com">warmerdam@pobox.com</a>>; PROJ.4 and general<br>
> Projections Discussions <<a href="mailto:proj@lists.maptools.org">proj@lists.maptools.org</a>><br>
> Emne: Re: [Proj] PROJ PSC<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> <br>
> 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>
> <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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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>
______________________________<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></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>