Hi Marc, Software quality is not measured by votes, comunity, marketing, governance models, politics, economical interests, hypes or any other social science.
Software quality can be measured using comparison tests from a scientific and independent methods. Just to say that some positions sound very biased and do not evaluate software using independent methods. How do you measure a car quality? By governance models? By comunities? By marketing or hype? By economic potencial? This all sounds very wrong. Cheers Em 15/05/2016 02:22, "Marc Vloemans" <marcvloema...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Peter, > > With regard to Rob's comments: I conclude that the various commentators > have repeatedly pointed out that your line of reasoning is either based on > a non-representative and even faulty sample of experiences/examples (eg > Jeroen and Rob) or on the software's quality and popularity in certain > circles (eg Rob) without clarifying that particular correlation to its > project management. > > In scientific terms that means your thesis/argument does not hold up. By > the way, citing sources on quality still does not tell anything about above > correlation, so spare yourself the effort. And comparing Rasdaman to other > OSGeoprojects still makes it an odd-one-out, which no side-stepping the > concerns raised can hide. > > Effectively, we seem to be running in circles. But ..... we are not: all > commentators have been quite inviting, but you still cannot convince them > with true and relevant reasons. You have even resorted to calling at least > me and (hopefully not too many) others along the way 'activists'. Wording > that fits lesser democratic countries, organisations and political systems. > If that gives an insight into the way you look at and treat > stakeholders/community members with a different view from yours, then I > fear you have shown our community your true 'colors'/face/intention.... > > That is not running in circles but straight into the abyss, somewhere > in-between OSGeo and Eclipse/LocationTech and other natural allies, in an > irrational and suicidal attempt ....... to achieve what exactly ???? > > Vriendelijke groet, > Marc Vloemans > > > Op 14 mei 2016 om 15:00 heeft Rob Emanuele <rdemanu...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi Peter, > > This is the second time I've heard you defend your position by simply > saying the greatness of the project justifies whatever model you'd like for > project governance, and mention some independent study that claims your > software is "way faster" and "wins all benchmarks". These are bold, general > and unqualified claims that I would greatly like to understand in a more > detailed way. Please site your sources. > > Best, > Rob > On May 14, 2016 5:43 AM, "Peter Baumann" <p.baum...@jacobs-university.de> > wrote: > >> OpenHub knows 66 code contributors, and they do not even know (and list) >> all over time. Hence, cannot see anyone felt discouraged. Typical rasdaman >> contributors are interested in design by innovation and not design by >> committee, and that community spirit has made rasdaman a leading tool that >> wins all benchmarks over GeoServer, SPARK, etc. >> -Peter >> >> PS: suggesting a fork just because OSGeo follows a narrow principle that >> does not accommodate rasdaman makes me frown about the ideals behind :) >> >> >> On 05/12/2016 02:57 PM, Ian Turton wrote: >> >> I've been trying to stay out of the arguments about governance models >> because I prefer to write code than worry about licences or governance. But >> it may help if I share a some anecdotes (which is almost data) about a >> couple of FOSS projects that came out of academia when I was in charge. One >> of these you may well have heard of GeoTools, which forms the base library >> of GeoServer, UDig, GeoMesa and others, the other you may not know GeoVista >> Studio. >> >> Both these libraries started out as academic projects that solved a >> research problem, both were open sourced as a result of the university >> claiming all the intellectual property of it's staff for ever (so why not >> give it away?) in both cases I (and James Macgil) were benevolent dictators >> when the projects launched, it was a simple governance model that left us >> able to get on with coding and researching and meant that things went the >> way we wanted. GeoTools started to get some users and people started asking >> for bug fixes and new features etc while James & I had actual jobs to do >> and wanted to spend time with our families and go on holiday etc. So we got >> some more people involved such as TOPP and Refractions and we sort of >> lucked into a PSC and GeoTools went from strength to strength and now has a >> PSC that spans the globe (which makes meeting times hard to find but is >> otherwise awesome). In fact for a while GeoTools and GeoServer managed (or >> thrived) with no input from me or James at all. However GeoVISTA studio, >> only went open source grudgingly (the PI's didn't want to give up control >> really) and never really gained more than a few users because we didn't >> allow other people to influence the direction of development (after all the >> university/PI was paying for the development) and thus there were only ever >> two or three developers. As BD I had no real interest in attracting new >> users (previous experience had taught me that's hard work). Once James and >> then I moved on to other jobs development stopped (though apparently >> someone downloaded a copy last week) >> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/geovistastudio/files/>. >> >> I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but my feeling is that to >> make the move from an academic to successful FOSS project you need to move >> from dictatorship to committee run projects. If nothing else it allows you >> some down time from running the project while never needing to give up >> having a say in the running. >> >> Ian >> >> >> PS Some recent emails have tried to suggest that governance doesn't >> matter if you have forkability but I think that is a flawed view - but if >> it is true maybe we could just fork RASDAMAN and be done with the >> discussion? :-) >> -- >> Ian Turton >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing >> listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Baumann >> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen >> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann >> mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de >> tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 >> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) >> www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com >> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 >> "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis >> ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli >> destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD >> 1083) >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
