I just had to respond to some comments in this e-mail. :] (I do appreciate you prodding us along on this issue David.)
You wrote: "I notice that your development community is very busy and perhaps over committed. May I suggest that approaching only the developer crowd may return positive support in general but a lack of ability to administer the proces?" I think you are correct in this statement. You wrote: "If you think that that are more users than developers (hopefuly) then it it not make more sense that the user community can contributed to this process more than the developers can. Often users want to contribute to Open Source projects but are not commited to producing code or maintaining documentation." This is an excellent suggestion. I will post an inquiry on the JUMP users list. You wrote: "Since they have a version of jump, would it not make good sense to work with Degree to get the core of deeJump (mainly Jump Pilot) into OSGEO." I could ask the deegree folks about this. However, they are likely over committed as we are. You wrote: "I saw discussion of Vivid Solutions, but what about Degree and what about Refractions (as they also developed the initial JUMP)" I don't know if you are talking about consolidating our web presence, or something else. I contacted Vivid Solutions as a first step. They are going to discuss it internally and respond to me in a few days. I don't think Refractions will be a problem, but I'll have to talk to Jody Garnett about it. I thought I would get a response from Vivid Solutions first. You wrote: "If you are an open community with transparent processes then there should not be any negative changes." This is a good description of our community. You wrote: "We all know of Projects that call themselves open source but you could never contribute code or influence the direction of the project because the project is run as a closed source project that gives away its code but never allows contributions because it is held captive by a few key players. A closed club with free source code that dies when it forks." This isn't OpenJUMP. In fact, it sounds like a good description of the original OpenJUMP. The reality is that we forked the code because Vivid Solutions maintained a choke hold, at least at the time, and JUMP has endured a slow death. The Sunburned Surveyor On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Sampson, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > Thought I'd pop back in after my requested hiatus. > > I notice that your development community is very busy and perhaps over > committed. May I suggest that approaching only the developer crowd may > return positive support in general but a lack of ability to administer the > proces? When we went thought the simmilar process in the GRASS community we > relied mainly on the user community with representation from from the > developers. If you think that that are more users than developers (hopefuly) > then it it not make more sense that the user community can contributed to > this process more than the developers can. Often users want to contribute to > Open Source projects but are not commited to producing code or maintaining > documentation. This would be an opportunity for users to have a lasting > impact on JP and leave a legacy. Remember that we are all about an open > community (or at least that is what I understand Open Source to be), so why > close out the users in this process? > > Second, I am sure you are aware of Degree entering OSGEO incubation… > http://www.osgeo.org/node/723 > > Since they have a version of jump, would it not make good sense to work with > Degree to get the core of deeJump (mainly Jump Pilot) into OSGEO. > > I saw discussion of Vivid Solutions, but what about Degree and what about > Refractions (as they also developed the initial JUMP > http://www.jump-project.org/project.php?PID=JUMP&SID=CRED) > > My final thought is to address some of the concernes that joining OSGEO will > change how you operate. If you are an open community with transparent > processes then there should not be any negative changes. Some positive > changes might come out that will strengthen the project though. On the other > hand if JUMP calls itself an open source project but does not realy play the > open source game, then the reservations might be well founded as OSGEO would > only want to adopt transparent and open projects. > > We all know of Projects that call themselves open source but you could never > contribute code or influence the direction of the project because the > project is run as a closed source project that gives away its code but never > allows contributions because it is held captive by a few key players. A > closed club with free source code that dies when it forks. Again, OSGEO > wants to avoid associating with such projects. Their processes are in place > to ensure that contributors are protected and users can exercise their > rights under the license. > > Some thoughts. > > Cheers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php > _______________________________________________ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
