Stage 0 - a. public mailing list with list archivethis is not a bad classification at all - it has the merit of being one where you can fairly unambiguously decide which category anything is in.
b. birth announcement via mailing list (e.g. OpenHealth) or
web-site
Stage 1 - a. downloadable code via open-source license
- b. public acknowledgement that someone else succeeded
in installing and testing the software
Stage 2 - public acknowledgement that someone else succeeded
in using the software in production environment
Stage 3 - a. more than 3 productions sites (managed by different teams)
other than the original team
b. public acknowledgement that more than one team is capable of
modifying the source code
I wouldn't know for most of these but it seems reasonable. My only comment is that this classification is fine for a sort of maturity index of software; things like openEHR have a lot of work in the specification space, shared (pioneered) by OMG HDTF, CEN 13606, HL7 and others, which don't appear on here at all. If you want to do a standards-compliance/acceptance classification, I guess it will come out a little differently.I realize this may not be exactly what you have in mind when you asked about reviews of these open-source projects. However, projects that are in stages 0 or 1 may not be ready for the kind of review that you have mind. So, maybe the first step is to classify projects by their "developmental" stage, then those in stage 2+ may benefit from further systematic review. For example, comments related to "user satisfaction" may seem "cruel" in the context of a stage 0 project.
Let's give it a try:
Stage 0: OpenEHR
Stage 1: GnuMed, TORCH, FreeB, Res Medicinae, (TkFP)+
Stage 2: (OpenEMed, Care2x, OSCAR, FreeMed, SQLClinic)*
Stage 3: VistA, OIO
- thomas beale
