[OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal 
for a 5 star rating.

Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we 
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we 
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process 
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the 
target audience?

Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is 
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo 
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.

We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on 
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.

Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people 
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and 
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS 
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source 
packages are available to replace their existing XXXX, but usually 
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the 
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges 
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl 
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we 
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
conferences.

So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable 
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so 
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?


On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>
> [foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]
>
> This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have 
> not step up to the plate for providing such materials -- for a variety 
> of reasons, some good and some not so good.
>
> OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, 
> and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good 
> -- if not, then so be it.
>
> I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more 
> than that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for 
> the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps 
> that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source 
> types, it should be up to them to provide the "marketing" materials 
> they deem appropriate.
>
> -mpg
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques
> *Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
> *To:* OSGeo Discussions
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>
> All,
>
> Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)
>
> That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort 
> of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate 
> a standardized look and feel to such things.
>
> bobb
>
>
>
> >>> Howard Butler <hobu.inc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
> compare them?
>
> /me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!
>
> This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing 
> to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those 
> "users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by 
> having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is 
> doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to 
> them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the 
> quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community.  A 
> silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in 
> any way.
>
> It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type 
> material from each project who wishes to participate to make their 
> case to the envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not 
> participate in this for whatever reason implicitly make a statement 
> about their quality. That's going to be far more useful to both the 
> projects and the users than an elongating graphic.
>
> Howard_______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>    


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20100608/0066f30f/attachment-0002.html>