[OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] New incubation procedure
jachym.cepicky at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 00:26:39 PDT 2015
your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather
thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then
just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now
does not work (ergo should be fixed)?
I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never
makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want
PyWPS to be "somehow" part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects
like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's
point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions):
1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
3 - attract more volunteers to incubation
4 - 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
Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of "clearing
rationale as to what is broken"? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting
(are you both at FOSS4GNA?)?
čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> napsal:
> Hi Jody,
> The work keeps falling back on the same people…
> We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re
> trying to fix.
> I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood.
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more
>>> formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at  may be more
>>> Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if
>>> we deem it appropriate**.....?
>>> Are there any volunteers?
>>>  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:
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss