[OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Tue Jun 8 17:40:28 PDT 2010

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> Well stated.
>
> As an organisation that is implementing Open Source spatial, we are looking
> to applications that have graduated from OSGeo Incubation as an indication
> of quality.
>
> If this is not the case, as has been indicated in this thread, then IMHO, we
> as OSGeo need to devise an approach that will allow organisations to select
> quality applications for deployment.
>
> The last thing that anyone wants is for a major player to implement a poor
> quality application and have problems with the bad publicity that would
> follow.
>
> We cannot expect that knowledgeable OS Spatial people will always be doing
> product selection. This is often a function assigned to an IT group through
> Enterprise IT Governance processes. The people doing the selection, may or
> may not have appropriate skills and experience.

Due diligence, caveat emptor and all. If the people doing selection
don't have appropriate skills and experience, then those people should
be replaced with people who have the appropriate skills and experience
to do the selection. Makes me shudder to think that not only might we
have inexperienced and inappropriate people at the helm, we are
willing to accept them there instead of changing them.

>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On 9/06/10 8:24 AM, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael,
> Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper
> about what OSGeo stands for and then how we market that. Successful
> product companies first find out what the market wants, the build a
> marketing message, then build the product to fit the market. Developing
> a shiny product then discovering no-one wants it is a sad but common story.
>
> In our case, we have created a brand called "OSGeo Incubation". What
> does that mean? Why is it valuable? How can we get that message across
> to our target market of GIS users who are interested in Open Source but
> don't know what OSGeo is?
>
> If OSGeo Incubation doesn't represent quality or maturity (which is what
> the market are looking for) then what is the point of spending years of
> volunteer time going through incubation?
>
> I'm afraid that "OSGeo Project" is not a compelling sales message to our
> target market, unless we can tie the message to quality or maturity (or
> another word with similar meaning).
>
> Unless we can provide such positive marketing, I expect that we will
> have spin off projects or organisations "defect" from OSGeo create their
> own marketing message. (I wouldn't be surprise if OpenGeo had similar
> thoughts before they created and then marketed the OpenGeo suite.)
>
> Marketing like everything else has positives and negatives.
> Positives:
> + Lots of users which draws in money and developers and we all make
> money and thrive
>
> Negatives:
> - We need to distill our messages down into marketing sound bytes and
> generalised rating systems and the like
>
> - We need to be honest in describing ours and others projects because
> that is what the market wants to hear before they will spend money on us
>
>
> On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>> Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over
>> it in various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:
>>
>>   - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
>>   - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
>>   - everything else
>>
>> With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two
>> categories; I don't think much explanation should be required up front,
>> especially if one avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation".
>>
>> -mpg
>>
>>
>> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
>> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================