An other thought on this might be a some kind of OSGeo "contrib" project
that is more focused on collecting projects likes Bob's into a common
repository with the hope that making these public might allow some of
them to spin-off into full blown OSGeo projects if there is enough
interest and community need for it.
This would not give the code OSGeo stamp of approval, but would just be
a holding place for potentially interesting code related to other OSGeo
projects that people might want to be able access and helps to prevent
potential gems from getting lost.
My guess is that it would still need some kind of PSC to decide what is
the gate to let things in and to make sure that the basic minimal stuff
required for entrance is done and to encourge others to pick and run
with ideas and spin-offs of the code being held. Something like this
would need to minimally have any code contributed assign its copyright
to OSGeo and state that it was infringement free or something like that.
Something to think about.
-Steve W
Bob Basques wrote:
Jody,
I was thinking about a bit more separation in functionality than you
describe, but it seems like the same process could work.
I guess I'm trying to figure out a way to let smaller projects in the
door, and let the mainstay project leaders decide if the smaller
projects have enough merit to nurture further or not.
I have a few different things I've put together that use MapServer as a
service, but they are all seemingly small project. As an example, I
have a Raster distribution service based on MapServer that we use to
populate our engineering AutoCAD sessions, it's really just some
specialized scripting in the AutoCAD instance, but I'm sure there are
folks out there that would re-use if I put it out as a project. I would
just barely have the time to put together a basic how-to for something
like this and publish it, but it wouldn't get much in the way of support
focus because of my own time constraints. I have something similar for
Google ion the Works, as well as Sketchup sessions. These smaller
projects have all had great success here internally, and are all built
as standalone services so they can be mixed and matched as the business
needs require.
Some might argue that they are all one thing, while other might want
them to remain separated. Anyway, just some more thoughts on the subject.
bobb
>>> Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bob; you will find that a few of the open source projects nurture new
talent this way.
The GeoTools library has the facilities in place to allow new developers
to come online and start an "unsupported" module with the support of the
community. Each module in GeoTools is an entire project (often making
use of the same interfaces and so forth). When a module meets the QA
requirements it can be included in the GeoTools download for the general
public.
Is this what you had in mind?
I understand that some something similar to Jakarta is often requested
from the OSGeo foundation. Thus far the incubation committee has been
really focused on getting existing projects through our incubation
process (and defining what the expectations are for such projects).
Jody
Bob Basques wrote:
> All,
> I have a question about a possible way to get some smaller projects
> into the system without the requirements of going full bore (as I
> perceive it now) I'm not really targeting any project per se at this
> point, but . . .
>
> What about have a "Super" project that can act as a sponsor for a
> smaller project. When I say smaller, I mean where there might only be
> one, two or three developers. The end result being that the "Super"
> project basically vouches for the smaller project in some fashion for
> it to get some sort of OSGEO stamp applied to it. This could
> possibly be a criteria where some of the established vetting is
> handled via a voucher system, where other "Super" projects can add
> their credentials to the mix over time.
>
> Just a thought, still a little muddled too, but it seems like there
> might be something workable in the concept. Any other thoughts?
>
> bobb
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
