Fwd: [Incubator] Project Incubation Mentor

[Sean Gillies]

Forwarding my reply. Take two.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Sean Gillies <sgillies at frii.com>
> Date: April 5, 2006 11:23:24 AM MDT
> To: Arnulf Christl <arnulf.christl at ccgis.de>
> Cc: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>, Jody Garnett  
> <jgarnett at refractions.net>, Chris Holmes <cholmes at openplans.org>
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Project Incubation Mentor
>
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>
>> Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> Sean Gillies wrote:
>>>> Frank,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not going to be able to do it. Most of it is time, but it's  
>>>> partly that my ideas about incubation are clearly outside the  
>>>> foundation main stream.
>>> Perhaps you could help me then Sean? I am not sure my ideas on  
>>> main stream either - and we do want to have a range of inputs so  
>>> we have a useful (rather then narrow) incubation process.  Going  
>>> through the previous posts to this list I do not get an  
>>> indication of where your ideas are, would you like to talk about  
>>> it more?
>>> Jody
>>
>> Hi Sean,
>> yes - I would also be interested to hear about your ideas and if  
>> only to find out what the "foundation main stream" might be (which  
>> to me still seems to be very much under development).
>>
>> One hope would be to learn from reverse engineering your offbeat  
>> ideas and then possibly enhance OSGeo's incubation procedure. I  
>> have heard several comments on what you blogged regarding  
>> MapServer Foundation and follow up OSGeo but couldn't find a link  
>> to read it myself. So if you would point me to one or two of your  
>> more controversial ideas I might learn what makes you tick.
>>
>> I also just might humbly request whether you would mentor us. We  
>> are a small and simple project, not much work to do. Just to get  
>> you back in. :-)
>>
>
> My perception is that the committee wants to fast track the initial  
> projects. That's what I mean by mainstream. IMO, the process should  
> be slower, more conservative, and have a real effect on the  
> projects. I'll try to use the projects most familiar to me as  
> examples.
>
> Conservative to me means that only projects with a bright and shiny  
> future should be released from the incubator. To be specific, I  
> think MapServer's best days are behind it. I'm not talking code,  
> here. I'm talking about developers and business. Much of  
> MapServer's development is mercenary. We've usually seen this as a  
> sign of vigor: people are making money as MapServer developers. On  
> the other hand, mercenary developers can always be employed away to  
> other projects. I expect to see Autodesk undermine MapServer like  
> this. It's not evil, it's just business. Additionally, the  
> MapServer Enterprise/Cheetah fiasco showed me how ready some  
> businesses are to swap MapServer out for the next big thing. IMO,  
> MapServer should demonstrate that its mojo is healthy and  
> increasing before it's out of the incubator.
>
> GDAL, on the other hand, clearly has a bright future. What I'd like  
> to see there is a real indicator that the project is achieving its  
> goal of transition from benevolent tyranny to community and  
> meritocracy. What would the indicator be? I don't know for sure.  
> Independent mercenary developers or consultants might be a good  
> sign. We always thought they were for MapServer. (Note that it is  
> very possible that I am just unaware of existing independent GDAL  
> developers and consultants.) I think the same measure could be  
> usefully applied to single-shop projects like MapGuide OS.
>
> I don't intend that going slow be punitive, but that it give  
> adequate time for projects to make progress on the transformations  
> that they've begun.
>
> Hopefully that clarifies my opinion.
>
> Sean
>
> ---
> Sean Gillies
> http://zcologia.com
>