<p dir="ltr">Hi Cameron,</p>
<p dir="ltr">An amazing elaborate criteria about project aspects I must say.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm also amazed how much criteria was defined to evaluate project's software quality, which is zero!</p>
<p dir="ltr">What about performance? OS compatibility? Dependencies? usability? UI/UX? Code tests? problem solving features? deprecated code/tecnologies? Etc...<br>
I could elaborate a list of dozens of itens that could really measure what is the fundamental: project's software.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sorry to bother... :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 22:57, "Cameron Shorter" <<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>> escreveu:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Marco,<br>
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist [1], which
is quite clear in the definition of a graduated OSGeo project.<br>
(It is option 1 by your definition below).<br>
<br>
[1]
<a href="http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html" target="_blank">http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html</a><div class="elided-text"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 16/05/2016 3:45 am, Marco Afonso
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The first criteria is technologicaly measureable.<br>
The second is not.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Your evaluation method open the following
possibilities:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. Never accept a new project with high quality
software but a lower evaluation of the project comunity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">2. Accept low quality of software with high project
comunity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">3. Accept a project with high comunity evaluation but
with old or deprecated software.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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 :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Marco<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" <<a href="mailto:ijturton@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:ijturton@gmail.com" target="_blank">ijturton@gmail.com</a></a>>
escreveu:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Marco, </p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The (perceived) quality of the software is of no
importance in this discussion if the project fails due to a
lack of community. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Ian </p>
<p dir="ltr">PS open hub notes geotools has 241 contributors
if we are measuring success in these metrics. <br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 15 May 2016 14:40, "Marco Afonso"
<<a href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mafonso333@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Anita,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on
software quality evaluation AND project organization
evaluation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So you can exclude an open source software
with high quality if their organization evaluation is
low.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For me that seems wrong. A software on a
public repository is only limited by it's licence terms,
or unlimited at all. :)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita
Graser" <<a href="mailto:anitagraser@gmx.at" target="_blank">anitagraser@gmx.at</a>>
escreveu:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Hi
Marco,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 15, 2016 at
1:18 PM, Marco Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:mafonso333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mafonso333@gmail.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">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".</p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Best wishes,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Anita</div>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div><div class="quoted-text"><pre cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000</a>, W <a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">www.lisasoft.com</a>, F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099</a></pre>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote></div>