[OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All, 

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. 

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. 

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. 

bobb 



>>> Yves Jacolin <yjacolin at free.fr> wrote:

Boob,

You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo (
http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

Regards,

Y.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :
> All,
>
> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized
chart of
> some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).
 One
> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.
>
> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some
from
> the conversation too):
>
> *  Incubation status
> *  Age of project
> *  Number of commiters
> *  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
> *  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
> *  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
> * etc. . . .
>
> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form
could
> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally
the
> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project
focus, so
> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the
standardized
> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com> 06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
>
> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>
> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
> management and long term viability than an indication of software
> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant
rating
> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars
> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or
3
> which is not necessarily the case.
>
> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or
not
> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do
when
> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then
it
> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
> of software against them will be quite a task.
>
> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on
our
> communities.
>
> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from
OSGeo.
> >
> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think
the
> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is
a
> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from
such
> > ratings.
> >
> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> > * Project has completed incubati
on
> > * Project is in incubatio> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may
be
> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential
for
> > conflict.

--
Yves Jacolin

http://yjacolin.gloobe.org
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20100607/09c46b71/attachment-0002.html>