Fwd: [Incubator] Project Incubation Mentor

[Jody Garnett]

Sean Gillies wrote: Forwarding my reply. Take two.
>> My perception is that the committee wants to fast track the initial 
>> projects. That's what I mean by mainstream. IMO, the process should 
>> be slower, more conservative, and have a real effect on the projects.
Fair enough. So far the incubator is having an effect on the geotools 
community, including some very positive ones as the current crop of 
module maintainers wrestles with what they actually have. In terms of 
signs of life I would be happy if geotools did not make it out of the 
incubator stage until the next release (even if that next release is 
called version 3).  We have all most the opposite problem as you 
described in that geotools is serving as a great start for project 
development, but we have not been able to make things easy enough to 
contribute back.

To be something "foundational" I expect geotools to work on its own 
foundations, with focus on standards support (already there), 
consistency of code (horrible but shows great signs for improvement), 
with a lesser focus on completeness of solution (we are a library with a 
clear focus, and a growing list of things we are not - such as widget 
toolkit).

And finally the biggest is accessibility - geotools needs to be able to 
provide at *least* an intro to use, even if that consists of demo 
programs with comments.

So I do not expect to be fast tracked, it is more important to do things 
well. One thing we are all using OSGEO for is a venue for improvement, 
while improvements in publicity may be visible, the incubator committee 
will be in charge of much of the "maturity" concerns and will set the 
pace and reputation that will prop up the OSGEO brand.
>> I don't intend that going slow be punitive, but that it give adequate 
>> time for projects to make progress on the transformations that 
>> they've begun.
And transformations the process inspires.
Jody