[OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sun May 15 14:57:05 PDT 2016
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist , which is
quite clear in the definition of a graduated OSGeo project.
(It is option 1 by your definition below).
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 :)
> Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" <ijturton at gmail.com
> <mailto:ijturton at gmail.com>> escreveu:
> 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.
> 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. :)
> 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,
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
Software and Data Solutions Manager
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...
More information about the Discuss