[OSGeo-Discuss] Tales from a Benevolent Dictator

Marco Afonso mafonso333 at gmail.com
Sun May 15 15:46:36 PDT 2016

Hi Cameron,

An amazing elaborate criteria about project aspects I must say.

I'm also amazed how much criteria was defined to evaluate project's
software quality, which is zero!

What about performance? OS compatibility? Dependencies? usability? UI/UX?
Code tests? problem solving features? deprecated code/tecnologies? Etc...
I could elaborate a list of dozens of itens that could really measure what
is the fundamental: project's software.

I thought that here at OSGeo you deal with geographic open source SOFTWARE
solutions but now I see that I'm wrong. The content that you provide tells
nothing about software qualities and facts, which are the ultimate
criteria, even more considering for production status!

Sorry to bother... :)

Em 15/05/2016 22:57, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> escreveu:

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 :)

Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" <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> 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> escreveu:
>>> Hi Marco,
>>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <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
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Discuss mailing
listDiscuss at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Cameron Shorter,
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

Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160515/85fc9b43/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list