Transfer repository ownership to SciTools
bjlittle opened this issue · comments
📰 Custom Issue
It's early days for geovista, which has just been born 🥳
The current plan is to bootstrap geovista here with an minimal stable core under ownership of https://github.com/bjlittle, before then transferring ownership of the repository to the https://github.com/SciTools organisation.
At the moment SciTools is slowly undergoing re-licensing from LGPL to BSD 3-Clause, and a refresh of its CLA. After this work is completed, and when geovista is "ready" it will be migrated to SciTools to live alongside its more mature and well-behaved sister cartopy.
More importantly, once geovista is under SciTools ownership, it can then be maintained by its awesome team of core developers 😄
Looking forward to this! Do you think we could have a checklist in the main issue body of what would make GeoVista "ready"? Should make it easier for us to hold ourselves to account.
Looking forward to this! Do you think we could have a checklist in the main issue body of what would make GeoVista "ready"? Should make it easier for us to hold ourselves to account.
@trexfeathers Totally agree.
I've have a ponder, and try to figure out the MVP for "readiness" to migrate. Fleshing that out to add realy clarity will give us something concrete to aim for, which is always a winner.
Thanks!
Bump
@trexfeathers Thinking on this, I'm not going to create an exhaustive list here. I feel that would be a bit counter-productive. Also, at the moment the line in the sand is quite fluid, and I'm totally okay with that (for now).
However, I am using the 
label in the this GH project to capture my current thinking on what I want to deliver.
Also, I don't see the point in transferring ownership too soon, otherwise I can't be as nimble, reactive and productive as I am at the moment. Dunno, tough call.
Ultimately, I think I'm relying on the fact that the decision of "when" will eventually become "clear", and I'm in no particular rush to force that decision along atm.
@trexfeathers However, do keep nudging me. That should keep things healthy 😉
It's important that the migration happens 👍
This is probably a "perfect is the enemy of the good" situation. We have to make sure we recognise when GeoVista has passed the "good" threshold, and resist waiting for "perfect".
In order to maintain a backlog of relevant issues, we automatically label them as stale after 180 days of inactivity.
If this issue is still important to you, then please comment on this issue and the stale label will be removed.
Otherwise this issue will be automatically closed in 28 days time.
This issue is still important.
In order to maintain a backlog of relevant issues, we automatically label them as stale after 180 days of inactivity.
If this issue is still important to you, then please comment on this issue and the stale label will be removed.
Otherwise this issue will be automatically closed in 28 days time.
This issue is still important.