[OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure

[Jachym Cepicky]

Whatever,

I would like to achieve:

1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do
not believe in "and lived happily ever after" - to become the project,
certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses
it's community?

The "still-callled-star" system I started to work on, was inspired by
Cameron notes (just FYI)

J

st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
napsal:

> I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this.
>
> I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is
> producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is
> an embarrassing bottleneck).
>
> Rather than a "star" system I think we can highlight how far along in the
> checklist each project is.
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman <
> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'.
>>
>> It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the
>> relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change
>> to rules.
>>
>> From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some
>> cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that
>> we as a community aspire to.
>>
>> When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable
>> credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of
>> honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to
>> dilute this?
>>
>> While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for
>> wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that
>> follows)?
>>
>> If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal
>> methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if
>> we deem it appropriate**.....?
>>
>> Are there any volunteers?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html
>>
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> I recently came across a number of "Open Source Maturity Methodologies",
>> which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or
>> referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150311/954a4ebf/attachment-0002.html>