<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Marco,<br>
You have suggested that the OSGeo Incubation Graduation Checklist
has zero software quality criteria? I respectfully disagree.<br>
<br>
It doesn't go down to the detail of "what UI tests exist?" Such
criteria are project specific, and different for each project. You
might be interested to do some research on software quality
auditing practices, such as CMMI [1]. The extensive CMMI auditing
practices spend more time on auditing the software development
process than on specifying tests for quality. This is because
there is a very strong correlation between good development
processes and software quality.<br>
<br>
If you look more closely at the graduation checklist, you will
notice there are checks for testing practices, and development
processes which have a track record in producing good software.<br>
<br>
The Incubation checklist is not perfect, and could potentially be
improved. Addressing project quality is typically not very
glamorous and testing volunteers are almost always greatly
appreciated.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration">[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration</a><br>
(Warning - reading this doc will be a huge time sink)<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Cameron<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/05/2016 8:46 AM, Marco Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG6YeNziHZk=qONLQ905WXn-hPgmV=MGPSKj_CkMpcY8wvG4mQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Cameron,</p>
<p dir="ltr">An amazing elaborate criteria about project aspects I
must say.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm also amazed how much criteria was defined to
evaluate project's software quality, which is zero!</p>
<p dir="ltr">What about performance? OS compatibility?
Dependencies? usability? UI/UX? Code tests? problem solving
features? deprecated code/tecnologies? Etc...<br>
I could elaborate a list of dozens of itens that could really
measure what is the fundamental: project's software.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I thought that here at OSGeo you deal with geographic
open source SOFTWARE solutions but now I see that I'm wrong. The
content that you provide tells nothing about software qualities
and facts, which are the ultimate criteria, even more
considering for production status!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sorry to bother... :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 22:57, "Cameron Shorter"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>>
escreveu:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Marco,<br>
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist
[1], which is quite clear in the definition of a graduated
OSGeo project.<br>
(It is option 1 by your definition below).<br>
<br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html"
target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html</a>
<div class="elided-text"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 16/05/2016 3:45 am, Marco Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Could some answer what is the % of the
ponderation weight of software quality and the % of
the ponderation weight of the project organization in
incubation decision?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The first criteria is technologicaly
measureable.<br>
The second is not.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Your evaluation method open the following
possibilities:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. Never accept a new project with high
quality software but a lower evaluation of the project
comunity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">2. Accept low quality of software with high
project comunity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">3. Accept a project with high comunity
evaluation but with old or deprecated software.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So, to me, seems that you are giving too
much weight on the social aspect (hardly measurable)
of the project, instead of giving weight to software
quality (technologicaly measurable) which is
fundamental to your criteria of being for production
:)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Marco<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian
Turton" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ijturton@gmail.com" target="_blank">ijturton@gmail.com</a>>
escreveu:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Marco, </p>
<p dir="ltr">I think you have missed the point of my
tales, both the projects that I wrote about are
open source (by any definition) but only the one
with an open organisation is thriving. </p>
<p dir="ltr">OSGeo is designed to support open and
sustainable development of geospatial solutions. A
benevolent dictatorship is a fragile model of
governance and so can not be acceptable to us as a
foundation. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The (perceived) quality of the software
is of no importance in this discussion if the
project fails due to a lack of community. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Ian </p>
<p dir="ltr">PS open hub notes geotools has 241
contributors if we are measuring success in these
metrics. <br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 15 May 2016 14:40,
"Marco Afonso" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mafonso333@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Anita,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Aha! So there is a ponderation
weight on software quality evaluation AND
project organization evaluation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So you can exclude an open source
software with high quality if their
organization evaluation is low.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For me that seems wrong. A software
on a public repository is only limited by it's
licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 13:14,
"Anita Graser" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anitagraser@gmx.at"
target="_blank">anitagraser@gmx.at</a>>
escreveu:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small">Hi Marco,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 15,
2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <span
dir="ltr"><<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com">mafonso333@gmail.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Once the software (as
an object) is available on a
public repository, it only matters
it's license terms to evaluate
it's restrictions. From there, it
is irrelevant "whos behind it".</p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small">Here I
have to strongly disagree. Imho,
the job of OSGeo incubation is to
evaluate a software project
(software and organisation)
therefore it makes no sense to
limit discussions to software
quality.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small">Best
wishes,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-size:small">Anita</div>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org"
target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div class="quoted-text">
<pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>, W <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F +61 2 9009 5099</pre>
</body>
</html>