<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body { line-height: normal; margin-left: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 1px; font-variant: normal }
p { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0 }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body style="margin-left: 4px; margin-top: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 1px">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">All,</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">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.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">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.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">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.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<font face="Comic Sans MS" size="3">bobb</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
<br>
<br>
>>> Yves Jacolin <yjacolin@free.fr> wrote:<br> </p>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3; border-left: solid 1px #050505; margin-top: 0; margin-left: 15px; margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 0; padding-left: 7px">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0">
Boob,<br><br>You mean something like this : <a href="http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo">http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo</a> ?<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Y.<br>Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :<br>> All,<br>><br>> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about using a small standardized chart of<br>> some sort. 5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification). One<br>> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.<br>><br>> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from<br>> the conversation too):<br>><br>> * Incubation status<br>> * Age of project<br>> * Number of commiters<br>> * Language(s) (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)<br>> * OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)<br>> * Mobile Version (Yes/No)<br>> * etc. . . .<br>><br>> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could<br>> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project. Additionally the<br>> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so<br>> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized<br>> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.<br>><br>> Just thinking out loud here.<br>><br>> bobb<br>><br>> >>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette@mapgears.com> 06/06/10 7:21 PM >>><br>><br>> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is<br>> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.<br>><br>> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process<br>> management and long term viability than an indication of software<br>> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.<br>> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating<br>> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars<br>> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3<br>> which is not necessarily the case.<br>><br>> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not<br>> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when<br>> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on<br>> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it<br>> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote<br>> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece<br>> of software against them will be quite a task.<br>><br>> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried<br>> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our<br>> communities.<br>><br>> Daniel<br>><br>> Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:<br>> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,<br>> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.<br>> ><br>> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the<br>> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a<br>> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such<br>> > ratings.<br>> ><br>> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:<br>> > * Project has completed incubation<br>> > * Project is in incubation<br>> > * Project is not in incubation<br>> > What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.<br>> ><br>> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be<br>> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for<br>> > conflict.<br><br>--<br>Yves Jacolin<br><br><a href="http://yjacolin.gloobe.org">http://yjacolin.gloobe.org</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Discuss mailing list<br>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org<br><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>