[OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Marco,
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist [1], which is 
quite clear in the definition of a graduated OSGeo project.
(It is option 1 by your definition below).

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html


On 16/05/2016 3:45 am, Marco Afonso wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Could some answer what is the % of the ponderation weight of software 
> quality and the % of the  ponderation weight of the project 
> organization in incubation decision?
>
> The first criteria is technologicaly measureable.
> The second is not.
>
> Your evaluation method open the following possibilities:
>
> 1. Never accept a new project with high quality software but a lower 
> evaluation of the project comunity.
>
> 2. Accept low quality of software with high project comunity.
>
> 3. Accept a project with high comunity evaluation but with old or 
> deprecated software.
>
> So, to me, seems that you are giving too much weight on the social 
> aspect (hardly measurable) of the project, instead of giving weight to 
> software quality (technologicaly measurable) which is fundamental to 
> your criteria of being for production :)
>
> Marco
>
> Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" <ijturton at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ijturton at gmail.com>> escreveu:
>
>     Marco,
>
>     I think you have missed the point of my tales, both the projects
>     that I wrote about are open source (by any definition) but only
>     the one with an open organisation is thriving.
>
>     OSGeo is designed to support open and sustainable development of
>     geospatial solutions. A benevolent dictatorship is a fragile model
>     of governance and so can not be acceptable to us as a foundation.
>
>     The (perceived) quality of the software is of no importance in
>     this discussion if the project fails due to a lack of community.
>
>     Ian
>
>     PS open hub notes geotools has 241 contributors if we are
>     measuring success in these metrics.
>
>     On 15 May 2016 14:40, "Marco Afonso" <mafonso333 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mafonso333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Anita,
>
>         Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality
>         evaluation AND project organization evaluation.
>
>         So you can exclude an open source software with high quality
>         if their organization evaluation is low.
>
>         For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is
>         only limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)
>
>         Cheers
>
>         Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" <anitagraser at gmx.at
>         <mailto:anitagraser at gmx.at>> escreveu:
>
>             Hi Marco,
>
>             On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso
>             <mafonso333 at gmail.com <mailto:mafonso333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Once the software (as an object) is available on a
>                 public repository, it only matters it's license terms
>                 to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is
>                 irrelevant "whos behind it".
>
>             ​Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo
>             incubation is to evaluate a software project (software and
>             organisation) therefore it makes no sense to limit
>             discussions to software quality.
>
>             Best wishes,
>             Anita​
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Discuss mailing list
>         Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160516/466a15a1/attachment-0002.html>