[Board] osgeo labs - Maturity Rating

[Jachym Cepicky]

Cameron,

you may be right, that the difference I was trying to achieve from
your proposal somehow disappeared during the e-mail writing process.
To conclude - I would be happy with your version (fine tuning in the
future of course possible).


2014-09-23 21:16 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>:
> Hi Jachym,
> I'm not sure what you feel are the differences between the original 4 star
> and suggested 5 star rating is?
> I note that a 4 star rating will likely hit the road block that we hit
> before (in that projects object strongly to being rated as a 2 star
> project).
> Either way, defining a rating is easy. Defining and then applying a
> checklist, such as is provided by incubation, is a much harder process, and
> until we have volunteers to put the checklist into place, I can't see this
> checklist being put into practice.

This should probably happen on the incubation-committee level. Also
former labs should be involved. We should probably discuss this on the
board level first

Thanks

jachym


>
>
> On 22/09/2014 6:29 pm, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>>
>> Cameron, I do not like your (or marketing's) proposal - it seems to
>> me, it's too towards-incubation oriented. But it has some important
>> details. I also think, 4 and 5 should be merged.
>>
>> I propose following version:
>>
>> 1 - Project has name, OSI license, header files are clean, can be in beta
>> stage
>> 2 - Project is stable, produces (or produced in the past) stable releases
>> 3 - Project has Stable Software, a Stable community, is deployed in
>> production systems, and is ready to pass criteria to enter incubation,
>> as per:http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
>> 4 -  Project has passed osgeo incubation, it also includes bundled
>> software, regular builds, security updates, training, etc.
>>
>> comments?
>>
>> Jachym
>>
>> 2014-09-20 1:24 GMT+02:00 Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> We discussed a 5 star maturity rating in 2010. I still like the idea, but
>>> it
>>> was contentious at the time, especially with projects which would rank
>>> low
>>> on the rating, and it was eventually dropped in favour of using just
>>> "Incubated"/"Incubating" as more politically acceptable.
>>>
>>> This is what we proposed:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Marketing_Artefacts&oldid=51118#Maturity_Rating
>>>
>>> Maturity Rating
>>>
>>> Description A 5 star rating system to qualify the how established a
>>> project
>>> is. Rating is to be broken down as follows:
>>>
>>> 5 stars: This rating is yet to be defined, and will not be allocated to
>>> projects yet. Project includes bundled software, regular builds, security
>>> updates, training, etc.
>>> 4 stars (mature): Project has passed osgeo incubation as per:
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>> 3.5 stars: Not to be used yet, but may later be introduced for projects
>>> which have entered incubation.
>>> 3 stars (established): Project has Stable Software, a Stable community,
>>> is
>>> deployed in production systems, and is ready to pass criteria to enter
>>> incubation, as per:http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
>>> 2 stars (stable): Project has Stable Software.
>>>
>>> Project produces periodic releases of stable software which is used in
>>> production systems.
>>>
>>> 1 star (beta): Project has Beta software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion about it here:
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2010-June/thread.html
>>>
>>> On 19/09/2014 8:41 am, Luca Delucchi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 September 2014 23:10, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or
>>>
>>> level 1 - project (name, license, headers)
>>> level 2 - code clean checked
>>> level 3 - steering committee
>>> level 4 - ...
>>> level 5 - community, mature osgeo project
>>>
>>> drift between levels is possible both ways (you lost community e.g.)
>>>
>>> I really like this idea...
>>>
>>> jody could give more insight view
>>>
>>> Jachym
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://les-ejk.cz/pgp/JachymCepicky.pgp

Give your code freedom with PyWPS - http://pywps.wald.intevation.org