[Incubator] Project Status Template

[Paul Spencer]

Frank, I don't have a strong opinion about this either way but I  
think the committee/board needs to be able to justify the decision  
one way or the other and I don't see a compelling argument (yet) to  
believe that we should refuse project incubation on the basis that  
they may not graduate.

I do believe that incubator projects need to be presented  
differently.  The most expedient way to accomplish this would be to  
have the project web site checked out under http:// 
incubator.osgeo.org/<projectname>.  When a project is accepted, the  
web site can be moved to http://<projectname>.osgeo.org/ with very  
little effort.

It may also be relatively simple to have an SVN/CVS location for  
incubator projects that is separate from official projects.  I can't  
imagine that it would be difficult to move an SVN tree when a project  
becomes official.

It also should not be too difficult to offer an alternate download  
site for incubator projects.

DanielB, could you chime in with some comments on my assumptions -  
anything I can do myself I assume is easy :)

Sean, in joining late I seem to have missed how you and Frank differ  
on incubation.  Could you summarize your differences?

Cheers

Paul
On 5-Apr-06, at 10:27 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Paul Spencer wrote:
>> Frank ...
>> If there is a possibility that a project can be rejected then it  
>> may be unwise to port the project's infrastructure into the osgeo  
>> infrastructure since that may cause more work for the project if  
>> they are rejected and migrate out.
>
> Paul,
>
> Well, if the approval is in doubt it would be prudent for a project to
> avoid the most expensive/disruptive types of migration.
>
>> Should we:
>> * make this possibility known and leave it to the project to decide
>
> This is the current approach.
>
>> * have the project pass an Incubator Committee vote on whether its  
>> probability of success is high enough to warrant use of the osgeo  
>> infrastructure (and how do we assess this)
>
> Well, I'm not too keen on this.  *But* I don't think we should even
> be accepting projects into incubation unless we believe they are  
> likely
> to pass incubation.  I think this is one of the points that Sean has
> a different opinion that I do, I believe.
>
>> * have a parallel infrastructure for incubation projects, or  
>> possibly just a parallel of a portion of the infrastructure such  
>> as http://incubator.osgeo.org/<projectname>
>
> What would the benefit of this parallel infrastructure be?  I'm not
> keen on any extra complication, nor for having to do further migration
> (other than updating a few status items) when transitioning from
> incubation to full membership.
>
> Best regards,
> -- 
> --------------------------------------- 
> +--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http:// 
> osgeo.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: incubator-unsubscribe at incubator.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: incubator-help at incubator.osgeo.org
>

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Spencer                           pspencer at dmsolutions.ca   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Applications & Software Development                              |
|DM Solutions Group Inc                 http://www.dmsolutions.ca/|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+