I'm going to write a letter to the Board of Directors of OSGeo
and ask them, for the record
what is their understanding of how this "rating system" is going
to be differentiated from an official, sanctioned OSGeo rating system
in all present and future materials, including all publicity, online
and on any LiveDVD
I expect that an answer will have to be completely explored before any
such
"rating system" is permitted on any OSGeo branded materials...
sorry Cameron, but your unilateral insistence on moving forward with
this,
despite repeated, thoughtful objections from multiple parties brings
this on...
signed
Brian Hamlin
planetwork.net
OSGeo California Chapter
(415) 717-4462 cell
On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Hamish wrote:
Cameron wrote:
We could specify maturity as a string, of maturity levels, with the
current maturity in bold, like:
Maturity: (mature | *established* | stable | beta)
This still helps users distinguish between projects, without stars.
Would that address people's concerns?
Sounds good to me (although I don't really see the need to list the
unused words; seems obvious).
I just couldn't see giving a project like GMT with 1000s of spottings
in journals like Science and Nature a 2/5 == "stable" star rating and
not have someone in the audience saying 'wtf?' ..
what would the difference between "mature" and "established" be? how
about vs .stable?
Hamish
ps- the many fixes from the 4.0rc1 build seemed to have been quiet for
a number of days, so time for the next one?
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
