Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Returning to this email thread: 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation I am happy with either wiki or IRC meeting to work through these topics. 4 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? The last topic is a subject for the projects mailing list (I think we would need feedback from existing project officers). I note we have a procedure for retiring a project, individual projects may also have language returning control of a project to the OSGeo board (in the even the PSC cannot make quorum). Reference: * http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html#dissolution-of-psc * http://www.osgeo.org/faq -- Jody Garnett On 12 March 2015 at 00:26, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: Bruce, your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now does not work (ergo should be fixed)? I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want PyWPS to be somehow part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions): 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation 4 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of clearing rationale as to what is broken? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)? Thanks Jachym čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com napsal: Hi Jody, The work keeps falling back on the same people… We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re trying to fix. I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. Bruce On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Hi Jachym, I won’t be attending FOSS4GNA. I suggest that if we are going down this track that we have and open process that allows all interested to provide **constructive criticism** on what people believe is broken. Perhaps this could be done via the wiki. We will then require a process to review the comments and respond appropriately. I suggest perhaps a weighting be added to comments from people who have practical experiences with the Incubation process. This would perhaps provided the basis for determining how to move forward. I will not have the time available to participate in this exercise, apart from perhaps in a review role. I personally believe that the onus for this work should reside with those who believe that the current process is broken. I’m not one of these. Bruce On 12 Mar 2015, at 6:26 pm, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: Bruce, your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now does not work (ergo should be fixed)? I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want PyWPS to be somehow part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions): 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation 4 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of clearing rationale as to what is broken? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)? Thanks Jachym čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com napsal: Hi Jody, The work keeps falling back on the same people… We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re trying to fix. I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. Bruce On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Whatever, I would like to achieve: 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? The still-callled-star system I started to work on, was inspired by Cameron notes (just FYI) J st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com napsal: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Bruce, your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now does not work (ergo should be fixed)? I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want PyWPS to be somehow part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions): 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation 4 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of clearing rationale as to what is broken? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)? Thanks Jachym čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com napsal: Hi Jody, The work keeps falling back on the same people… We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re trying to fix. I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. Bruce On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
If we could add to your list: 4. Attract more volunteers to incubation -- Jody Garnett On 11 March 2015 at 06:05, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever, I would like to achieve: 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella 3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses it's community? The still-callled-star system I started to work on, was inspired by Cameron notes (just FYI) J st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com napsal: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Hi Jody, The work keeps falling back on the same people… We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re trying to fix. I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. Bruce On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck). Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in the checklist each project is. -- Jody Garnett On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules. From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html === I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies ___ 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] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies, which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies On 27/02/2015 5:34 am, Angelos Tzotsos wrote: It is also interesting to see the Apache incubator project list: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ On 02/26/2015 08:24 PM, Tom Kralidis wrote: Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake up call for me [1]): - review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project - update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this should not come at the cost of software quality) Looking at Apache's project list [2] as an example tells me there is an opportunity to grow. ..Tom [1] https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040 [2] http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 11:50:47 PST 2015 Previous message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Next message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements. I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the work will in-fact continue). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge woodbri at swoodbridge.com wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own because the community is weak. pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong enough community to be able to graduate. It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to harvest this. Anyway, something to think about ... ___ Incubator mailing list incuba...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake up call for me [1]): - review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project - update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this should not come at the cost of software quality) Looking at Apache's project list [2] as an example tells me there is an opportunity to grow. ..Tom [1] https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040 [2] http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 11:50:47 PST 2015 Previous message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Next message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements. I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the work will in-fact continue). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge woodbri at swoodbridge.com wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own because the community is weak. pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong enough community to be able to graduate. It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to harvest this. Anyway, something to think about ... ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
It is also interesting to see the Apache incubator project list: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ On 02/26/2015 08:24 PM, Tom Kralidis wrote: Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake up call for me [1]): - review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project - update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this should not come at the cost of software quality) Looking at Apache's project list [2] as an example tells me there is an opportunity to grow. ..Tom [1] https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040 [2] http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 11:50:47 PST 2015 Previous message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Next message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements. I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the work will in-fact continue). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge woodbri at swoodbridge.com wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own because the community is weak. pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong enough community to be able to graduate. It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to harvest this. Anyway, something to think about ... ___ Incubator mailing list incuba...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator -- Angelos Tzotsos Remote Sensing Laboratory National Technical University of Athens http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
I would like to get some time and, as Cameron pointed out, try to rewrite current incubation checklist between new proposed star system than we can start to talk about it again then we can agree on something then we can use it :) sounds easy, right? thanks J Mon Feb 23 2015 at 22:05:36 odesílatel Landon Blake sunburned.surve...@gmail.com napsal: I agree we should revisit our incubation process and see how our former OSGeo Labs fits in to the overall incubation process. I'm willing to help. What is our next step? Landon On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jachym, I think this is a good idea. Also to include in this discussion is streamlining our existing incubation docs. In particular, retire General Principles of Incubation [1], update our Project Graduation Checklist [2], and update our Incubator Application Questionnaire [3]. The links below include proposals for how these docs could be updated. [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/General_Principles_of_Incubation [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Graduation_Checklist [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Incubator_Application_Questionnaire On 16/02/2015 10:44 pm, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym ___ Discuss mailing listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 ___ Incubator mailing list incuba...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
I agree we should revisit our incubation process and see how our former OSGeo Labs fits in to the overall incubation process. I'm willing to help. What is our next step? Landon On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jachym, I think this is a good idea. Also to include in this discussion is streamlining our existing incubation docs. In particular, retire General Principles of Incubation [1], update our Project Graduation Checklist [2], and update our Incubator Application Questionnaire [3]. The links below include proposals for how these docs could be updated. [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/General_Principles_of_Incubation [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Graduation_Checklist [3] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Incubator_Application_Questionnaire On 16/02/2015 10:44 pm, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym ___ Discuss mailing listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 ___ Incubator mailing list incuba...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements. I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the work will in-fact continue). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge wood...@swoodbridge.com wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: Hi, I would like to dig a bit more into the topic more fine incubation procedure and former OSGeo Labs (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in past, but you can find more at http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow between the steps up and down, related to their current living phase. I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also related to the certification topic (even not people, but software). Jachym This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own because the community is weak. pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong enough community to be able to graduate. It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to harvest this. Anyway, something to think about ... Best, -Steve ___ Incubator mailing list incuba...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
