incubation checkup was Re: [Board] Meeting Reminder - this Friday

[Frank Warmerdam]

Jo Walsh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:49:03AM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>> Perhaps the incubation process in general could do with a 1 year review.
>> What did you have in mind with regard to a 1 year incubation review.  Did
>> you want a report to the board from the incubator on where it stands?
>> Or are you suggesting that the incubator should sit down and review it's
>> process with an eye towards re-engineering where appropriate?   I'd be happy
>> to produce a report to the board and membership.
> 
> Right, I am thinking about 2 sets of things here:
> - a kind of survey of all the projects of their experience of
>   incubation
> - a re-examination of what is going on in the process in the light of 
>   concerns that emerge from this

Jo,

Whew, but what if I get feedback I don't want to hear?  More seriously,
folks are pretty tapped out, so I'm afraid of generating a whole bunch
more work with no one to do it, revising things.

However, I have initiated a mentor report on incubation status for the
different projects that may be illuminating.  Markus and I have also
talked about a few issues.

> I am concerned that incubation can be seen as too much of a chore. 

It definately can be, but if we want being an OSGeo project to mean
something then I think we have to set a reasonable target level for
projects to graduate incubation.

> Especially the Java people seem to be having issues with code audit
> perhaps because they have so much code to audit ;) 

I wasn't aware of a code audit issue with GeoTools (perhaps you mean
more GeoNetwork?)  In the case of GeoTools things have gotten seriously
frustrated around the issue of a copyright assignment or possibly some
other form of contribution agreement acceptable to the whole team.

 > I wonder how
> incubator can be made more actively helpful in this regard. 
> I wonder about the mentorship process and how it would be nice to have
> several people 'mentoring' and be able to encourage support for
> shortfalls amongst the broader membership.

We have mentors for each project, but there is a limited pool of mentors
with a good background in the incubation process.  In fact, availability
of mentors is a limiting factor.  And I think some mentors (myself included)
are not necessarily living up to the full responsibilities of the position.

> GeoNetwork is looking for some help with bug tracking and release
> management, i think. 

Looking for advice?  Actual do-the-work help?  Setting up infrastructural
services?  Really, I don't think we have a bag full of developers just
looking for something to do.  But I'm sure we could at least squeeze some
advice, and infrastructure help out if desired.

 > There´s a short stack of features missed by their
> user community that it would be lovely to have in the next release
> cycle but scarce developer time is being allocated to code audit, how
> much sense does that make?

Well, if we don't think that code audit is important then we should
dispense with it.  But I don't see how we can be serious about legal
rigor without doing this level of audit on entry into the foundation.

There are times I have thought we ought to have two levels of code
audit and rigor.  One high level for libraries or applications that
are likely to get embedded in other things, and a more modest level for
top level applications.  But I'm not sure that is reasonable either.

Anyways, the summary is that as Incubator chair I'm not keen on too
much introspection and process re-consideration unless members of the
committee or projects in (or through) incubation push the issue.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org