Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Jody Garnett]

OSGeo has a mandate to support open source spatial; one of the ways it does so 
is by helping projects go through an incubation process (resulting a nice logo 
and some assurance that the project is in fact open source and spatial).

The live dvd is another part of promoting open source spatial.

Jody

On 08/06/2010, at 11:27 AM, Mark Leslie wrote:

> At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo projects 
> on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of the Live-DVD, 
> then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best packages available for 
> users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the best packages on the disk.  
> Presumably these could be graduated projects.
> 
> --
> Mark
> 
> 
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>  There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
>> Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for 
>> a 5 star rating.
>> Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
>> OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are 
>> packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit 
>> that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our 
>> marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the target 
>> audience?
>> Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless 
>> because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less 
>> likely to know what "Graduated" means.
>> We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
>> Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.
>> Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who 
>> drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers 
>> which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have 
>> heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source packages are 
>> available to replace their existing , but usually haven't heard of OSGeo 
>> and almost certainly don't know about the graduation process. They want to 
>> know about the best 2 or 3 packakges they should consider, and they 
>> definitely don't want to have to trawl through 350 software packages on 
>> http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, 
>> then walk onto the other 50 exhibition booths at the conference.
>> Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we don't 
>> get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
>> conferences.
>> So the challenge is:
>> * How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable to 
>> GIS users new to Open Source?
>> * How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
>> acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
>> * How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so that 
>> it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?
>> On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>> 
>>> [foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread…]
>>> 
>>> This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not 
>>> step up to the plate for providing such materials – for a variety of 
>>> reasons, some good and some not so good.
>>> 
>>> OSGeo should simply put a link to the project’s “marketing” section, and if 
>>> the project owners provide content on the other end, then good – if not, 
>>> then so be it.
>>> 
>>> I’m all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than 
>>> that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most 
>>> part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are 
>>> explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it 
>>> should be up to them to provide the “marketing” materials they deem 
>>> appropriate.
>>> 
>>> -mpg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
>>>  
>>> [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
>>> *To:* OSGeo Discussions
>>> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of 
>>> thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a 
>>> standardized look and feel to such things.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> bobb
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> >>> Howard Butler   wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
>>> > compare them?
>>> 
>>> /me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!
>>> 
>>> This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to 
>>> help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to t

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All,

I guess it comes down to the argument of whether OSGEO stands for a state of 
mind, or should it be considered a brand only, not to be sullied by all those 
unwarmed projects?  Move over Apple, there's a new brand in town . . .

:c)

bobb



>>> Mark Leslie  06/07/10 8:27 PM >>>
At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo 
projects on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of 
the Live-DVD, then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best 
packages available for users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the 
best packages on the disk.  Presumably these could be graduated projects.

--
Mark



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Mark Leslie]

At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo 
projects on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of 
the Live-DVD, then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best 
packages available for users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the 
best packages on the disk.  Presumably these could be graduated projects.


--
Mark


Cameron Shorter wrote:

  There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal 
for a 5 star rating.


Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we 
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we 
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process 
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the 
target audience?


Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is 
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo 
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.


We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on 
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.


Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people 
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and 
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS 
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source 
packages are available to replace their existing , but usually 
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the 
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges 
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl 
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we 
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
conferences.


So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable 
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so 
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?



On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:


[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread…]

This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have 
not step up to the plate for providing such materials – for a variety 
of reasons, some good and some not so good.


OSGeo should simply put a link to the project’s “marketing” section, 
and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good 
– if not, then so be it.


I’m all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more 
than that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for 
the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps 
that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source 
types, it should be up to them to provide the “marketing” materials 
they deem appropriate.


-mpg

 

*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques

*Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
*To:* OSGeo Discussions
*Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

 


All,

 


Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)

 

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort 
of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate 
a standardized look and feel to such things.


 


bobb

 




>>> Howard Butler   wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
compare them?


/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing 
to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those 
"users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by 
having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is 
doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to 
them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the 
quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community.  A 
silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in 
any way.


It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type 
material from each project who wishes to participate to make their 
case to the envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not 
participate in th

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it in 
various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:

 - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
 - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
 - everything else

With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; I 
don't think much explanation should be required up front, especially if one 
avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation".

-mpg


From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for a 
5 star rating.

Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by OSGeo 
at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are packaging 
and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit that a 
project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our marketing 
material in a manner that will be understood by the target audience?

Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless 
because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less 
likely to know what "Graduated" means.

We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.

Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who drop 
by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers which have 
"Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have heard of Open 
Source and want to know what Open Source packages are available to replace 
their existing , but usually haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly 
don't know about the graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 
3 packakges they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to 
trawl through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 exhibition 
booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we don't get 
such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at conferences.

So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable to GIS 
users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so that it 
doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?


On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote: 
[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread.]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not step up 
to the plate for providing such materials - for a variety of reasons, some good 
and some not so good.
OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, and if the 
project owners provide content on the other end, then good - if not, then so be 
it.
I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than that 
is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most part, a 
very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are explicitly 
targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it should be up to 
them to provide the "marketing" materials they deem appropriate.
-mpg
 
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Bob Basques
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
 
All, 
 
Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c) 
 
That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things. 
 
bobb 
 


>>> Howard Butler  wrote:

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way.

It would be more

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal 
for a 5 star rating.


Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we 
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we 
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process 
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the 
target audience?


Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is 
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo 
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.


We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on 
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.


Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people 
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and 
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS 
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source 
packages are available to replace their existing , but usually 
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the 
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges 
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl 
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we 
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
conferences.


So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable 
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so 
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?



On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:


[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]

This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have 
not step up to the plate for providing such materials -- for a variety 
of reasons, some good and some not so good.


OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, 
and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good 
-- if not, then so be it.


I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more 
than that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for 
the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps 
that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source 
types, it should be up to them to provide the "marketing" materials 
they deem appropriate.


-mpg

*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques

*Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
*To:* OSGeo Discussions
*Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

All,

Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort 
of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate 
a standardized look and feel to such things.


bobb



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
compare them?


/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing 
to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those 
"users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by 
having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is 
doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to 
them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the 
quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community.  A 
silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in 
any way.


It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type 
material from each project who wishes to participate to make their 
case to the envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not 
participate in this for whatever reason implicitly make a statement 
about their quality. That's going to be far more useful to both the 
projects and the users than an elongating graphic.


Howard___
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
   



--
Camero

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] StackOverflow like GIS website

[Alexis Guéganno]

Hi everybody !

I've some news for people who don't keep a watch to stack exchange.
Some bad news first. All the votes which had been made have been
cleared, and the rules have changed. A question can now be classed in
three categories : On-topic, off-topic, and "not a good example". For
each of these categories, contributors can only use five votes. I.e.
you can point only five questions as on-topic, 5 as off-topic, etc...
and to be marked as on-topic or off-topic, a question does not need
ony 10 votes, but 30.

What does it mean ?

We need the support of anyone is interested in this site. It does not
only mean that you put your subscription, and that's over. Every vote
is important, and we need as much coherence as possible. So if you
have five minutes, take them to vote for this proposal on stack
exchange. It needs to be more accurate thant with the former rules...
but it will be an efficient way to draw 10 meaningful on-topic and
off-topic questions.

Greetings,

Agemen.

-- 
OrbisGIS developer.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: is wms-dev list still active?

[Adrian Custer]

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 11:43 -0400, Yewondwossen Assefa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  I was trying to send a question to the wms-dev list
> (http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/wms-dev/ ), but It seems to be
> inactive. I am wondering if someone knows where would it be
> appropriate to send questions regarding WMS specification.
> 
> Thanks
> 

Hello,

I can not say for that mailing list, it is the first I hear of it. 

If you have basic "how does this work?" kind of questions there are
probably lots of people on this list who know the standard well and who
could help. 

If you have highly technical questions, like "what is the presumed
duration of validity of the ServiceMetadata document?", then you could
send them to the WMS 2.0 Standard Working Group at the Open Geospatial
Consortium. We have a moderated mailing list
wms-1.4@lists.opengeospatial.org
to which only Consortium members can subscribe. (Opening up the OGC is a
long slow struggle.) If we have an answer Joan, Satish, or I are liable
to answer; if we don't, you might launch us into a lively debate. 

cheers,
--adrian

PS Ignore the 1.4: after the standards group formed it became clear the
next version of the standard had to be 2.0 and we've been too lazy/busy
to dissolve and re-form under the new version number.



> 
> 
>  Original Message  
>   Subject: 
> is wms-dev list still active?
>  Date: 
> Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:19:53 -0400
> 
>  From: 
> Yewondwossen Assefa
> 
>To: 
> wms-dev-ow...@lists.eogeo.org
> 
> 
> Hi There,
> 
> Is the wms-dev list still active and is the one to be used for wms 
> discussions?
> 
> Looking at http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/wms-dev/ , I do not see any 
> posting since Feb 2010.
>  I also sent a posting to the list this morning but I believe it did 
> not make it to the list.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> 
> Assefa Yewondwossen
> Software Analyst
> 
> Email: yass...@dmsolutions.ca
> http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
> 
> Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
> Fax:   (613) 565-0925
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not step up 
to the plate for providing such materials - for a variety of reasons, some good 
and some not so good.
OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, and if the 
project owners provide content on the other end, then good - if not, then so be 
it.
I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than that 
is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most part, a 
very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are explicitly 
targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it should be up to 
them to provide the "marketing" materials they deem appropriate.
-mpg

From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Bob Basques
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating


All,


Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)


That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things.


bobb



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way.

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All, 

Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c) 

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things. 

bobb 



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way.

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Howard Butler]

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way. 

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

Additionally . . . 

Things like Services, vs Desktop, vs Web Frameworks don't seem to be defined 
for comparison purposes.  Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects 
before trying to compare them? 

bobb 



>>> Paolo Cavallini  wrote:

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
>
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ( 
> http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

Same here,  I would also lik to compare all Javascript like things with other 
javascript like projects for example. 

I'm not sure what the best approach to this type of thing either, but the 
Product data sheet seems like a reasonable method of applying a product summary 
that could be useful for most folks. 

bobb 



>>> Paolo Cavallini  wrote:

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
>
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ( 
> http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
> 
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Fwd: is wms-dev list still active?

[Yewondwossen Assefa]

Hi,

 I was trying to send a question to the wms-dev list 
(http://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/wms-dev/ ), but It seems to be 
inactive. I am wondering if someone knows where would it be appropriate 
to send questions regarding WMS specification.


Thanks



 Original Message 
Subject:is wms-dev list still active?
Date:   Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:19:53 -0400
From:   Yewondwossen Assefa 
To: wms-dev-ow...@lists.eogeo.org



Hi There,

Is the wms-dev list still active and is the one to be used for wms
discussions?

Looking athttp://lists.eogeo.org/pipermail/wms-dev/  , I do not see any
posting since Feb 2010.
 I also sent a posting to the list this morning but I believe it did
not make it to the list.

Thanks,

--

Assefa Yewondwossen
Software Analyst

Email:yass...@dmsolutions.ca
http://www.dmsolutions.ca/

Phone: (613) 565-5056 (ext 14)
Fax:   (613) 565-0925





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All, 

Close, but it's still got the five star thing, which I have to admit is
missleading.  Also, where are the criteria that were used to arrive at
those star ratings? . . .  I mean is that a popularity metirc?  In
relation to other projects, or simple number of downloads, etc. 

Also, the only way I could get GeoMoose to pop up, was by entering
GeoMoose into the search string.  This interface has some logic up front
that is arbitrarily being placed in there in some manner.  OpenJump
didn't come up either with the OSGEO sarch term. 

The layout is nice, but I was thinking more along the lines of a Product
spec sheet.  A long version, maybe a max page in length, and a shorter
version for use in the corner of a promotional page.  Some thike these
seem to have a lot of flexibility with regard to reuse by supporting
(commercial) interests in that the product sheets would look similar to
each other. 

bobb 



>>> Yves Jacolin  wrote:

Boob,

You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo (
http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

Regards,

Y.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :
> All,
>
> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized
chart of
> some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).
 One
> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.
>
> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some
from
> the conversation too):
>
> *  Incubation status
> *  Age of project
> *  Number of commiters
> *  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
> *  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
> *  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
> * etc. . . .
>
> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form
could
> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally
the
> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project
focus, so
> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the
standardized
> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
>
> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>
> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
> management and long term viability than an indication of software
> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant
rating
> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars
> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or
3
> which is not necessarily the case.
>
> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or
not
> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do
when
> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then
it
> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
> of software against them will be quite a task.
>
> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on
our
> communities.
>
> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from
OSGeo.
> >
> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think
the
> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is
a
> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from
such
> > ratings.
> >
> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> > * Project has completed incubati
on
> > * Project is in incubatio> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining 
> > this rating, (which may
be
> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential
for
> > conflict.

--
Yves Jacolin

http://yjacolin.gloobe.org
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Yves Jacolin]

Boob,

You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ?

Regards,

Y.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :
> All,
>
> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized chart of
> some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).  One
> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.
>
> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from
> the conversation too):
>
> *  Incubation status
> *  Age of project
> *  Number of commiters
> *  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
> *  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
> *  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
> * etc. . . .
>
> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could
> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally the
> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so
> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized
> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
>
> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>
> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
> management and long term viability than an indication of software
> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating
> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars
> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3
> which is not necessarily the case.
>
> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not
> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when
> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it
> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
> of software against them will be quite a task.
>
> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our
> communities.
>
> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
> >
> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the
> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a
> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such
> > ratings.
> >
> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> > * Project has completed incubation
> > * Project is in incubation
> > * Project is not in incubation
> > What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
> >
> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be
> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for
> > conflict.

-- 
Yves Jacolin

http://yjacolin.gloobe.org
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All,

Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized chart of 
some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).  One of 
these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.

Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from the 
conversation too):

*  Incubation status
*  Age of project
*  Number of commiters
*  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
*  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
*  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
* etc. . . .

Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could be 
expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally the 
standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so 
that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized 
(smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.

Just thinking out loud here.

bobb




>>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.

To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating 
and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars 
(because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 
which is not necessarily the case.

If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not 
then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when 
we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it 
will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.

In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our 
communities.

Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
>> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
>> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
>>
> 
> Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the 
> potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a 
> very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such 
> ratings.
> 
> 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> * Project has completed incubation
> * Project is in incubation
> * Project is not in incubation
> What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
> 
> 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
> refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for 
> conflict.
> 


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[P Kishor]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Daniel Morissette
 wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> AFAIK the objective of incubation is *NOT* to rate the maturity of projects:
> it is to verify that they have an open and active users and developers
> community, open and documented decision and development processes, that the
> source code is free from IP issues, and that as such the project seems
> viable and OSGeo is ready to stand behind it. That's the way incubation
> works today and I don't think we can go beyond that without hurting some
> people and eventually fragmenting our community.
>
> Of course it is easier for more mature projects to pass all those tests, but
> graduating incubation is not a software (source code) maturity indicator.
>
> Nowhere in the incubation process do we evaluate the quality, robustness,
> performance, user-friendlyness, usability, etc. of the software... so I
> repeat it: a star rating based solely on incubation status would mislead the
> users and could have some ill side-effects.
>

I agree with Daniel. Star ratings are misguided. Stars convey a
value-judgment that is neither intentional, nor calculated nor meant
to be conveyed. Nevertheless, a browser looking at a project that is
rated 3 stars versus a project that is rated 5 stars is bound to take
away an "opinion" that was never meant to be given.

Just state clearly what "graduated from incubation" means, indicate
whether a project has graduated or not, and then let the browser/user
decide.


> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>> I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of
>> thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing OSGeo
>> graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in the OSGeo
>> community.
>>
>> I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points which
>> should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until that
>> happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for projects going
>> into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for projects completing
>> graduation (assigned 4 stars).
>>
>>
>> Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason / Cameron,
>>>
>>> >From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:
>>>
>>> I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation
>>> could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors described by
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
>>> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>>>
>>> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
>>> management and long term viability than an indication of software
>>> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. However, a
>>> star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating and would
>>> mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars (because it passed
>>> incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 which is not
>>> necessarily the case.
>>>
>>> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not
>>> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when we
>>> differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
>>> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it
>>> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote earlier...
>>> and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece of software
>>> against them will be quite a task.
>>>
>>> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
>>> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our
>>> communities.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> Cameron Shorter wrote:

 On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
>
> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
>

 Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the
 potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a very
 strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such ratings.

 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
 * Project has completed incubation
 * Project is in incubation
 * Project is not in incubation
 What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be
 refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for
 conflict.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Daniel Morissette]

Cameron,

AFAIK the objective of incubation is *NOT* to rate the maturity of 
projects: it is to verify that they have an open and active users and 
developers community, open and documented decision and development 
processes, that the source code is free from IP issues, and that as such 
the project seems viable and OSGeo is ready to stand behind it. That's 
the way incubation works today and I don't think we can go beyond that 
without hurting some people and eventually fragmenting our community.


Of course it is easier for more mature projects to pass all those tests, 
but graduating incubation is not a software (source code) maturity 
indicator.


Nowhere in the incubation process do we evaluate the quality, 
robustness, performance, user-friendlyness, usability, etc. of the 
software... so I repeat it: a star rating based solely on incubation 
status would mislead the users and could have some ill side-effects.


Daniel

Cameron Shorter wrote:

Jason,
I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of 
thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing 
OSGeo graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in 
the OSGeo community.


I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points 
which should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until 
that happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for 
projects going into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for 
projects completing graduation (assigned 4 stars).



Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Jason / Cameron,

>From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:

I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation 
could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors 
described by Andrea.


This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.

Comments?


Bruce



Daniel Morissette wrote:
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.


To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant 
rating and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 
stars (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others 
with 2 or 3 which is not necessarily the case.


If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or 
not then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do 
when we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then 
it will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.


In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on 
our communities.


Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:

On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.




Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think 
the potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there 
is a very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained 
from such ratings.


1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential 
for conflict.











--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Comment on OSGeo Project Marketing template before we set it in stone

[Arnulf Christl]

On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 08:59 +1000, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Arnulf,
> I agree that we should only have one marketing template, which will 
> provide content for a pdf/paper flier, a HTML description for the OSGeo 
> LiveDVD, and an Open Office Text (odt) format, which can be cut&pasted 
> into various other uses, like System Integrators' marketing material.
> 
> The postgis template I put together is based upon the prior marketing 
> template. I'd like to think it to be an enhancement, or version 2 of the 
> template.
> 
> In particular, I've moved from the Open Office Presenter format to Open 
> Office Text format as it is harder to the key useful formats for users 
> (HTML, ODT and Word).
> 
> I also expect that we will get marketing material for every project that 
> is on the LiveDVD, which includes most of the OSGeo projects, as these 
> projects have already produced similar material for prior LiveDVD releases.
> 
> Jason,
> Note that the LiveDVD packages more than just OSGeo incubating and 
> graduated projects. As OSGeo support is only for OSGeo support projects, 
> that means there are some projects on the LiveDVD which are not included 
> in OSGeo Support.

Saying "OSGeo support" in the context of commercial activities might
suggest that OSGeo actually does provide this on its own - which is not
the case and not foreseeable. Restricting the "commercial support
corner" to flyers or info sheets for OSGeo projects only could also be
interpreted as a restriction which in my opinion is not something that
OSGeo would like to propose. So many details to consider... thanks for
moving this forward! 

Best regards, 
Arnulf. 

> 
> On 06/06/10 04:12, Jason Birch wrote:
> > Arnulf,
> >
> > Yes, I like both of those options.
> >
> > I think my initial reaction was because it implied that a project was
> > only supported by a single commercial entity, which isn't healthy. But
> > I can definitely see the need to meet the use cases you've outlined.
> >
> > It makes a lot of sense to encourage/enable local consultants to
> > modify the marketing material for their own use (hopefully without
> > destroying the brand: OSGeoJason). We need to support our commercial
> > efforts wherever possible.
> >
> > Providing a box at the bottom with some boilerplate for the SPD ("for
> > other commercial support options?") but making it clear that business
> > cards should be attached on top of it is a great way of supporting the
> > folks who are working the booths and developing local support for (and
> > businesses around) OSGeo.
> >
> > Cameron,
> >
> > If there are OSGeo projects that are not represented if the provider
> > directory, this needs to be fixed, probably with a Trac ticket. I like
> > the idea of a support.osgeo.org that allows you to choose the
> > "product" you need support for, and are then provided with links to
> > website, documentation, and a list of commercial support providers
> > which could be filtered by location. IMO, this would be better as a
> > separate app than trying to hack drupal. Any takers? :)
> >
> > I think using the existing templates makes a lot of sense. My main
> > recommendation for typography (and I'm as far from knowing what I'm
> > talking about as anyone) would be to pick a single face. As a
> > non-designer I try to keep the visual hierarchy as simple as possible,
> > using size and weight and staying away from colour, style, and white
> > space for defining importance. These can all used effectively, but are
> > easier to mess up too.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On 2010-06-05, Seven (aka Arnulf)  wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Cameron,
> >> this should be tied directly to the project overviews / info sheets [1]
> >> that are already available on the OSGeo website and "should" be
> >> maintained by the projcets themselves. Tyler has provided really nicely
> >> layouted templates to do just this. To me it does not make sense to make
> >> projects deliver several different version that need to be maintained
> >> and updated separately. It is hard enough to nudge, encourage and coerce
> >> folks to maintain one such artefact.
> >>
> >> We would need to check what to do with projects that have so far not
> >> shown any interest / do not plan to get involved more closely with OSGeo
> >> (yet). But I guess that a more neutral layout should be easy to glean
> >> from what is there already.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason,
> >> some time back we envisaged a project template with a free space in the
> >> lower right corner. At conferences this can be used for some neutral
> >> OSGeo info or business cards for folks appearing at an OSGeo booth.
> >> Companies providing support can use these templates to add their logo /
> >> stamp / business card in the lower right corner.
> >>
> >> Sponsorship prospectus;
> >> We (so far Tyler, Jeff and me) try improve our sponsorship prospectus
> >> and we came up with a related idea to provide these flyer / brochure