MapGuide PSC Meeting 02-08-2007 - Revision history

Wiki-Robertbray: /* Transcript */

2007-02-08T23:02:29Z

Transcript

Wiki-Robertbray at 23:01, 8 February 2007

2007-02-08T23:01:03Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 22:57, 8 February 2007

2007-02-08T22:57:30Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 17:18, 8 February 2007

2007-02-08T17:18:59Z

Wiki-Robertbray at 17:18, 8 February 2007

2007-02-08T17:18:34Z

New page

[[MapGuide PSC]] - Home

== Meeting Info ==

The sixth meeting of the MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday February 8st at 18:00 UTC (1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST).

Meeting Chair: Bob Bray
Universal Time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=02&day=08&year=2007&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
Location: The meeting will be held on IRC at [irc://irc.freenode.net/mapguide #mapguide]

== Agenda ==
* More CLA Topics
* Incubation Status
* Process to put a minor modification into an already approved RFC. (Tom)

== Actions ==

== Transcript ==

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
   <rbray>	danmo: Any new incubation issues to discuss? The incom meeting on Monday seems like the next step.
   <jasonbirch>	Bob, what's the license on the DWF toolkit?
-  <danmo>	nothing other than the email that I sent earlier this week. All the rest seems good to go. Monday's meeting seems to be the next step, right.
+ <danmo>	nothing other than the email that I sent earlier this week. All the rest seems good to go. Monday's meeting seems to be the next step, right.
   <FrankW>	danmo / rbray: will you both be able to make the incubation meeting on monday?
   <rbray>	jasonbirch: I am digging that up. Will post it today.
@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
   <TomFukushima>	It's flagged: the license needs to be added to the source repository
   <jasonbirch>	I'm a bit worried about 1.1.3:
-  <jasonbirch>	(b)The terms of sublicenses granted by Licensee must (i) contain all applicable terms of this Agreement
+ <jasonbirch>	(b)The terms of sublicenses granted by Licensee must (i) contain all applicable terms of this Agreement
   <jasonbirch>	Does that mean that the LGPL license of MapGuide is not good enough, or does including the DWF license text in the distribution cover this?
   <rbray>	I don't know the history behind it all.
@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
   <TomFukushima>	right
   <jasonbirch>	Sounds like we have concensus :)
-  <rbray>	That was too easy. Nice that we have a well established model to follow. :)
+ <rbray>	That was too easy. Nice that we have a well established model to follow. :)
   <TomFukushima>	Great! Should I put this in one of the the PSC process doc
   <jasonbirch>	Do we vote now, or wait for modifications to the doc?
@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
   <rbray>	Nevermind, lets update the doc.
   <jasonbirch>	That was a recursive topic...
-  <rbray>	:)
+ <rbray>	:)
   <bdechant>	:)
   <jasonbirch>	Wow, do we get to adjourn early?
   <rbray>	Unless someone has additional topics?
   <rbray>	Going once...
-  <rbray>	twice...
+ <rbray>	twice...
   <FrankW>	wants to submit the "make mapguide work on 64bit linux rfc"....
   <jasonbirch>	That would be awesome.
@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
   <jasonbirch>	+1. At least they aren't coming to YOU with application development questions...
   <rbray>	FrankW: I think Traian got 32 bit MG running on 64 bit linux.
-  <rbray>	So you could check in with him.
+ <rbray>	So you could check in with him.
   <FrankW>	rbray: My aim is to be able to work natively on my desktop 64bit system, but I'll settle for being able to run fdo+gdal provider for now.
   <rbray>	FrankW: Cool, could be the start of 64 bit MG. Let us know how it goes.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 8 February 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	== Actions ==		== Actions ==

		+	* (Bob) Update CLA to clarify that it refers only to the '''project'''
		+	* (Bob) Post Corporate CLA for Review / Motion
		+	* (Bob) Look into DWF Toolkit License
		+	* (Tom) Update PSC Guidelines with RFC modification process

	== Transcript ==		== Transcript ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 8 February 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:

	== Transcript ==		== Transcript ==
		+	<rbray> First topic is CLAs.
		+	<bdechant> Hello everyone
		+	<rbray> Daniel raised a good point about it not mentioning whether it pertains to the project or the foundation.
		+	<rbray> I think that needs to be clarified in the CLA itself. Which means we will probably need to revote and recollect them.
		+	<jasonbirch> Works for me.
		+	<rbray> I don't like it because we have already collected a bunch, but I don't see any other choice.
		+	<rbray> I am also pondering the Corporate CLA. I am reviewing that with legal as well.
		+	<jasonbirch> Hmm. The new one is more specific. If the original submitters are happy with the wording, I don't really see the need to re-submit.
		+	<rbray> The foundation may have an issue with it.
		+	<rbray> Because there is nothing in it that ties the agreement to the project. It reads as though it applies to eveything in the foundation.
		+	<danmo> Did anyone from the board of the foundation comment on this CLA issue?
		+	<jasonbirch> Oh. I'd prefer to avoid that then. Have to deal with some startup pain I guess.
		+	<rbray> No but I have not raised it to the board. Maybe I should before I get carried away.
		+	<danmo> FrankW is on the mapguide-internals list so he must have seen the email pass. I wonder if he read it
		+	<rbray> Dunno. I'll ping him seperately by e-mail and cc you.
		+	<rbray> I know the board has discussed CLAs at one or more board meetings.
		+	<danmo> ok. or maybe this email can be sent to IncCom since CLA is kind of IncCom business?
		+	<rbray> Yea, I know the attitude of some projects is not to use a CLA. So I am inclined to just say our CLA needs to be project specific.
		+	<FrankW> My opinion is the same as Jason's that as long as the contributor doesn't mind the original CLA wording it is harmless.
		+	<rbray> FrankW: Should we fix it going forward, or leave it as is?
		+	<FrankW> So just fix it, and if anyone wants, let them submit a new CLA in place of the old.
		+	<rbray> Great.
		+	<FrankW> I do think you should fix it. I won't sign the old one for FDO for instance.
		+	<FrankW> (too broad)
		+	<rbray> Yes I agree. I'll have our IP lawyer fix it for me. Should have a new one for approval by weeks end.
		+	<rbray> I am reviewing the old Corporate CLA with her now and will also be posting that for review. ADSK would prefer to use one of those.
		+	<rbray> DM Solutions might as well.
		+	<rbray> Because of all this though, I was thinking of extending the deadline another week. Any objections?
		+	<jasonbirch> No, +1
		+	<bdechant> No objection here
		+	<rbray> OK
		+	<rbray> danmo: Any new incubation issues to discuss? The incom meeting on Monday seems like the next step.
		+	<jasonbirch> Bob, what's the license on the DWF toolkit?
		+	<danmo> nothing other than the email that I sent earlier this week. All the rest seems good to go. Monday's meeting seems to be the next step, right.
		+	<FrankW> danmo / rbray: will you both be able to make the incubation meeting on monday?
		+	<rbray> jasonbirch: I am digging that up. Will post it today.
		+	<rbray> I'll be there as well.
		+	<rbray> I think it is a free use license, kind of like LGPL but not.
		+	<jasonbirch> lol
		+	<rbray> I know there are a lot of third parties using it, so it can't be something terrible.
		+	<FrankW> Is it OSI? And is the DWF toolkit distributed from OSGeo?
		+	<rbray> And our legal team cleared it when we open sourced MG.
		+	<FrankW> we have a fairly strict rule that OSGeo distributed software should be under an OSI approved open source license.
		+	<FrankW> Of course Autodesk can distribute it no problem.
		+	<rbray> I don't know if it is OSI yet, because I have not looked at it in over a year.
		+	<rbray> It's in the MG source tree, so we are distributing it in that way.
		+	<TomFukushima> License is here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=5522878
		+	<sigq> Title: Autodesk - Developer Center - License and Download for DWF Toolkit 7 (at usa.autodesk.com)
		+	<FrankW> ok, if it's in the source tree then I do think the issue should be resolved (with regard to being actually OSI legit).
		+	<rbray> It is an ADSK license. Not OSI.
		+	<FrankW> I mean OSI approved.
		+	<rbray> I highly doubt it. How does a license become OSI approved?
		+	<FrankW> It is submitted to OSI and run by their lawyers with regard to the essential freedoms of the open source definition.
		+	<FrankW> Well, lets flag this for further review. I don't think it needs to hold up graduating or anything like that.
		+	<rbray> OK. Tom is this flagged in the Provinence Review? I mean the license and is the license itself in the tree?
		+	<danmo> ... or even better you pick an already approved license... but there may be good reasons why ADSK lawyers chose to build their own license instead of reusing an existing one?
		+	<TomFukushima> It's flagged: the license needs to be added to the source repository
		+	<jasonbirch> I'm a bit worried about 1.1.3:
		+	<jasonbirch> (b)The terms of sublicenses granted by Licensee must (i) contain all applicable terms of this Agreement
		+	<jasonbirch> Does that mean that the LGPL license of MapGuide is not good enough, or does including the DWF license text in the distribution cover this?
		+	<rbray> I don't know the history behind it all.
		+	<rbray> When Rich reviewed this he thought having the license text in the distro covered it.
		+	<jasonbirch> I wouldn't mind seeing DWF under a true OSI license :)
		+	<rbray> Maybe to be safe I will check with legal again, since I am having daily discussions with them anyway :)
		+	<jasonbirch> Anything else for incubation, now that I've fuinished stirring the pot?
		+	<rbray> I think that is it until Mondays incom meeting.
		+	<danmo> agreed
		+	<rbray> I'll follow up on the DWF issue on the internals list, once I learn more.
		+	<rbray> Ok, last topic on the formal agenda is RFC modifications.
		+	<rbray> Did everyone read Tom's proposal on the mail list?
		+	<jasonbirch> Oh, sure... :)
		+	<rbray> Ok before we go there (giving Jason time to read).
		+	<rbray> danmo: How does MapServer deal with changes to an RFC that arrise after it was accepted?
		+	<danmo> I don't think we have a clear policy. My opinion is that it would be fine to update the RFC with approval of the PSC until the implementation is complete and released.
		+	<FrankW> The only policy that was stated in this regard is that a complete rework of an RFC should be issued under a new #.
		+	<danmo> After the features in a RFC have been released then I don't think we should be allowed to edit a RFC, the old RFC shoudl be deprecated and a new RFC created to supercede it
		+	<jasonbirch> That kind of change should not require a new RFC. I like Tom's outline, as long as the RFC has not been flagged as completed. If it has, then a new bug task or enhancement task should be used depending on the scale of the changes.
		+	<rbray> Yea that makes a lot of sense. That is more or less what Tom is proposing.
		+	<rbray> Yea, what Tom is refering to are changes that arrise during implementation.
		+	<TomFukushima> right
		+	<jasonbirch> Sounds like we have concensus :)
		+	<rbray> That was too easy. Nice that we have a well established model to follow. :)
		+	<TomFukushima> Great! Should I put this in one of the the PSC process doc
		+	<jasonbirch> Do we vote now, or wait for modifications to the doc?
		+	<danmo> If you put that in writing in your RFC process docs then you'll be ahead of MapServer :)
		+	<jasonbirch> Process is everything, unless it gets in the way of reality...
		+	<TomFukushima> Ok, I'll put it in the process doc and then we can vote on it next week
		+	<rbray> Ok, so the question is should we modify the doc for this or just post it as a seperate RFC doc?
		+	<jasonbirch> lol.
		+	<rbray> We do have a page on RFCs somewhere...
		+	<rbray> Nevermind, lets update the doc.
		+	<jasonbirch> That was a recursive topic...
		+	<rbray> :)
		+	<bdechant> :)
		+	<jasonbirch> Wow, do we get to adjourn early?
		+	<rbray> Unless someone has additional topics?
		+	<rbray> Going once...
		+	<rbray> twice...
		+	<FrankW> wants to submit the "make mapguide work on 64bit linux rfc"....
		+	<jasonbirch> That would be awesome.
		+	<rbray> Awesome. Are you going to do the work?
		+	<FrankW> just kidding ... adjourn.
		+	<FrankW> lol
		+	<jasonbirch> No teasing :)
		+	<FrankW> Well, lets say I'm going to do a little experimenting with FDO on 64bit linux, but I'm not taking on MapGuide.
		+	<jasonbirch> How about getting sorting working in SDF ;)
		+	<rbray> Ok, lets adjourn. I'll go call my favorite folks in legal, sigh...
		+	<jasonbirch> +1. At least they aren't coming to YOU with application development questions...
		+	<rbray> FrankW: I think Traian got 32 bit MG running on 64 bit linux.
		+	<rbray> So you could check in with him.
		+	<FrankW> rbray: My aim is to be able to work natively on my desktop 64bit system, but I'll settle for being able to run fdo+gdal provider for now.
		+	<rbray> FrankW: Cool, could be the start of 64 bit MG. Let us know how it goes.
		+	<FrankW> will do - I'll comment on fdo-internals on what I find.
		+	<pagameba> FrankW ... Shawn is working on an fgs build of mapguide stuff now ...
		+	<rbray> Meeting Adjourned: Thanks everyone.
		+	<danmo> bye
		+	<FrankW> pagameba: yes, I heard that last week. It is fantastic news.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == Meeting Info ==
-The sixth meeting of the MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday February 8st at 18:00 UTC (1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST).
+The sixth meeting of the MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday February 8th at 18:00 UTC (1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST).
   Meeting Chair:  Bob Bray