[OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

Peter Baumann p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Thu Mar 5 12:25:41 PST 2015 

hm, what about replacing the anonymous stars by concrete fulfilments? A project
might earn fulfilments, such as "has PC", "successful code review", etc. All it
would require is to boil down the requirements into a 1-digit number of
sections, each one earning one named "star" then. My main argument for this is
achievement transparency for the reader. Links under the stars might explain the
meaning, or refer to the individual project's mentor assessment on the
particular facet. Again, this would increase transparency IMHO.
my 0.02,
Peter


On 03/05/2015 09:13 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
> I think the idea would be that an "Incubated Project" would have meet all the
> basic stars. Obviously the steps that get you to be "incubated" are the same
> steps that a project have to achieve to get stars. It seems like there are
> goals to get you to "incubated" and then goals to get you to "graduated". But
> really it is a continuous process of achievement with milestones along the way
> that can be easily verified.
>
> Regardless of a name, it seems like having a progressive well defined path
> than can be managed under by the same program and that minimizes the effort by
> OSGeo staff in the initial steps would be a good thing for everyone involved.
> This should not be diluting anyone's efforts as long as it is clear what the
> stars means in the way of progress and effort of the projects involved.
>
> -Steve W
>
> On 3/5/2015 2:57 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like diluting the "Incubated Project" status by turning
>> it into a star rating in which incubated and non-incubated projects are
>> mixed.
>>
>> Incubated projects have taken steps to review their code and adjust
>> their way to operate to meet several requirements, and just a set of
>> stars do not relay that properly to the outside world.
>>
>> That being said, I have no alternative name to offer for the "OSGeo
>> Labs" pre-incubation status at the moment, so I'll stay out of the debate.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On 2015-03-05 5:52 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
>>> Or you’re saying you want to address this with the stars system? So 1
>>> star for existing labs projects for instance?
>>>
>>> Jody, as chair of the incubation committee, what’s your take on this?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bart
>>>
>>>> On 05 Mar 2015, at 11:51, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl
>>>> <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think you can put projects that have gone through incubation
>>>> and the projects that still have to incubate at the same level. But
>>>> that’s my opinion only.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bart
>>>>
>>>>> On 05 Mar 2015, at 11:18, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are trying to find a term for something, I would like to
>>>>> get rid of. "OSGeo Project" is, what I would like to achieve for both
>>>>> - today's projects and labs together under one hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or anybody thinks completely different?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my $.02
>>>>> J
>>>>>
>>>>> čt 5. 3. 2015 v 9:08 odesílatel Suchith Anand
>>>>> <Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk
>>>>> <mailto:Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk>> napsal:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Yes, i think "Incubator Projects" is an appropriate name for this.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Vaclav - Is this ok for you?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Suchith
>>>>>     __________________________________________
>>>>>     From: Bart van den Eijnden [bartvde at osgis.nl
>>>>>     <mailto:bartvde at osgis.nl>]
>>>>>     Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 7:34 AM
>>>>>     To: Vaclav Petras
>>>>>     Cc: Suchith Anand; discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>     Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree Community Projects is a confusing name.
>>>>>
>>>>>     What about incubator projects? That’s the term that Apache uses.
>>>>>
>>>>>     http://incubator.apache.org <http://incubator.apache.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Best regards,
>>>>>     Bart
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:25, Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com><mailto:w__enzeslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Suchith Anand
>>>>>     <Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.__uk
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk><mailto:Suchith.Anand at __nottingham.ac.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk>>> wrote:
>>>>>     Thanks Jeff.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Though we had lots of discussions afterwards and continuing on
>>>>>     this , we couldnt find any solution till now. So this might be a
>>>>>     good opportunity  to modify the Incubation's "labs" term, to
>>>>>     something like "Community Projects" to avoid confusion if that is
>>>>>     acceptable to Vaclav, Jachym and others. Many thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Well, I'm not particularly fond of "Community Projects" as a
>>>>>     name. Even mature FOSS projects are community projects in one way
>>>>>     or the other. Unfortunately, I don't have other suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Vaclav
>>>>>
>>>>>     Suchith
>>>>>
>>>>>     __________________________________________
>>>>>     From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.__org
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces at __lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>>>>     [discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.__org
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces at __lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>>] On Behalf Of Jeff
>>>>>     McKenna [jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>__<mailto:jmckenna at __gatewaygeomatics.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>]
>>>>>     Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:26 PM
>>>>>     To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss at lists.osgeo.org>__>
>>>>>     Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>>>>>
>>>>>     (we are approaching 2 full years that this "labs" naming has
>>>>> been an
>>>>>     issue and discussed[1])
>>>>>
>>>>>     Today, knowing how ingrained the term 'lab' is in the GeoForAll
>>>>>     education network, maybe Jachym is correct that it is a good
>>>>> time to
>>>>>     modify the Incubation's "labs" term, to something like "Community
>>>>>     Projects".
>>>>>
>>>>>     [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/__pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/2013-__June/000134.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/2013-June/000134.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>     -jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 2015-03-03 3:42 AM, Suchith Anand wrote:
>>>>>     > Vaclav,
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Please accept my sincere apologies as it was my mistake that i
>>>>>     did not think on this  when we started the ICA-OSGeo Labs
>>>>>     initiative (so many things were going on at that time!).
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > In universities, we generally use the "Labs" term to refer to
>>>>>     infrastructure/people/__facilities for a particular subject. For
>>>>>     example Botany Lab, Robotics Lab etc. And we wanted to make sure
>>>>>     there is a dedicated Open Source Geospatial Lab in universities
>>>>>     worldwide  (which includes bringing together people from various
>>>>>     disciplines, infrastructure (the physical space) and facilities
>>>>>     to make this happen. Also it is easier to make use of the same
>>>>>     terminology/structure of "Labs" which is widely used in the
>>>>>     university environment to get academics start the initiative in
>>>>>     their respective universities (also it is easier for them to
>>>>>     convince their higher management on a structure that is known to
>>>>>     them than reinvent a new term for this) .
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > So it will very helpful for us if you can make use of new
>>>>>     "OSGeo-projects" and metioned star (or similar) rating system for
>>>>>     the incubation as then there is no confusion in the future. Many
>>>>>     thanks for your consideration.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Best wishes,
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Suchith
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > __________________________________________
>>>>>     > From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.__org
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces at __lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>>>>     [discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.__org
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces at __lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>>] On Behalf Of Jachym
>>>>>     Cepicky [jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com><__mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.__com
>>>>>     <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>>]
>>>>>     > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:27 AM
>>>>>     > To: Vaclav Petras
>>>>>     > Cc: OSGeo Discussions; incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:incubator at lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:incubator at lists.osgeo.__org
>>>>>     <mailto:incubator at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>>>>     > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Vašku,
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > just side note: yes, whith the new "Labs" initiative
>>>>>     "OSGeo-Labs" have to change their name.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > My idea would rather be to get rid of current OSGeo- "labs" and
>>>>>     "projects" and start with new "OSGeo-projects" and metioned star
>>>>>     (or similar) rating system.
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Than for current OSGeo-Labs "OSGeo-project level 1" would make
>>>>>     it (or similar)
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Jachym
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > po 2. 3. 2015 v 18:33 odesílatel Vaclav Petras
>>>>>     <wenzeslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com><mailto:w__enzeslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com>><mailto:we__nzeslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com><mailto:wenz__eslaus at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:wenzeslaus at gmail.com>>>> napsal:
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky
>>>>>     <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com><__mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.__com
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>><mailto:jachym.cepicky at __gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com><mailto:jachym.__cepicky at gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>>>>>     > former "OSGeo Labs" (now it has no name is slowly forgotten in
>>>>>     past, but you can find more at
>>>>>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/__OSGeo_Labs
>>>>>     <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs>)
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Hi Jachym,
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > do you think that with the renewal you can replace the name
>>>>>     "OSGeo Labs" by something else? Now we have also ISPRS-ICA-OSGeo
>>>>>     Research and Educational laboratories which might be often
>>>>>     shortened to OSGeo Labs, although I prefer OSGeoRELs for writing.
>>>>>     The mainling list is ica-osgeo-labs. Put perhaps it is not such
>>>>>     an issue since the term "Geo for All" (http://www.geoforall.org/)
>>>>>     is now used more and more (well, the linked website as OSGeo Labs
>>>>>     in the title element).
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     > Thanks for taking this into consideration,
>>>>>     > Vaclav
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     >
>>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>__>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the
>>>>> addressee
>>>>>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>>>>     message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately
>>>>>     delete it.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in
>>>>> this
>>>>>     message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed
>>>>> by the
>>>>>     author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
>>>>>     University of Nottingham.
>>>>>
>>>>>     This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>>>     attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage
>>>>> your
>>>>>     computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>>>>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be
>>>>> monitored as
>>>>>     permitted by UK legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>__>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>     <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>__>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the
>>>>> addressee
>>>>>     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>>>>>     message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately
>>>>>     delete it.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in
>>>>> this
>>>>>     message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed
>>>>> by the
>>>>>     author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
>>>>>     University of Nottingham.
>>>>>
>>>>>     This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>>>>     attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage
>>>>> your
>>>>>     computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
>>>>>     communications with the University of Nottingham may be
>>>>> monitored as
>>>>>     permitted by UK legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>>     Discuss mailing list
>>>>>     Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)

More information about the Discuss mailing list