Hi Marco and Peter, Sorry for my ignorance. However I couldn’t tell the difference between ancient greek oracle, Bible and modern science. For me, those things are the same in terms that *The Absolute* should/will be conveyed through *Imperfect* human however the great virtue/categorical imperative those are though.
Kind regards, 신상희 --- Shin, Sanghee Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company http://www.gaia3d.com > 2016. 5. 15., 오전 10:44, Marco Afonso <mafonso...@gmail.com> 작성: > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 list >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Baumann >> - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen >> www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann >> <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann> >> mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de >> <mailto:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de> >> tel: +49-421-200-3178 <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax: +49-421-200-493178 >> <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178> >> - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) >> www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com/>, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com >> <mailto:baum...@rasdaman.com> >> tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 >> <tel:%2B49-173-5837882> >> "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 <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > <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
