Re: [technology-pmc] GeoMesa CQ's

[Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Further to this, Janet has let me know it would be very helpful if each project provided a priority list for their CQ's if there is a priority. This will help them prioritize CQ's even within a given project. If there's a water line at which the project can build successfully, please denote that as the IP team will go that far and help the next project in the queue before circling back. This can be done via. a spreadsheet or whatever.

On 23/09/14 15:50, Rob Emanuele wrote:

That sounds like a good strategy to me.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Making a long topic short, I'd like to try something in hopes it helps.

Currently, the IP review for LocationTech projects has been largely done in parallel. This means a little progress has been made on a lot of different projects. The down side of that is that from the outside, it's hard to see the progress.

Rather than parallel, I'd I'd like to start trying a serial approach starting with GeoMesa... PMC, I would be grateful if we could review & approve their CQ's please. Baring any objections, GeoTrellis is next, followed by GeoGig. We'll digress into prereqs as needed.

Your input in terms of priority order does matter if you want to share it with me. I'll also be consulting the Steering Committee.

Thank you,

Andrew
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc