[Incubator] Meeting Reminder

[Jody Garnett]

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Thanks Frank, response inline.
>> Seems straightforward - not quite sure what "Have project documents 
>> been updated to reflect membership in the foundation, and the 
>> relationship of the project to the foundation?" means.
> The idea is that project pages ought to be showing in their "about"
> pages or other appropriate locations that they are now a member of
> OSGeo.
I think at the end of the incubation process we should have a link to an 
"example" of each of these check points.
>> 3. Project Infrastructure Migration
>>
>> Can the integration table for collabnet be completed?
> I didn't really get what you wanted in this integration table, so I  
> can't hack it.
Ah - I wanted to know what works with what. for example by issuing an 
svn commit the following will be updated (in geotools): cruise control 
build, task tracker will pick up the commit comment, commit will be sent 
to IRC log, commit will be sent out as email, changed code will show up 
in the wiki code examples, finally changed code will show up on a 
website (javadocs api).

What happens when I do an svn commit on collabnet?
> Ideally I would like to see you bring these issues forward for discussion
> and possible inclusion.
I see so should I add to that page? Documentation status and license, 
third party dependencies, .... 
>> I think we should do as we always planned, use these initial projects 
>> as a guide
>> to what kinds of transformations should be expected as a project goes 
>> though
>> incubation. During discussion & email several interesting 
>> expectations were raised
>> and I think talking to the projects afterwards will lead to a good 
>> set of ideas.
> Note, the way I understood the initial intention, we were going to 
> essentially
> use the lowest common denominator of the first 8 projects to establish 
> minimum
> entrance criteria for new projects.  That it, it was expressed as "we
> shouldn't be imposing any criteria the initial eight projects can't 
> meet".
Understood, however several of the project (geotools and mapbuilder) 
seem to be using this
as an opportunity to either improve their own game, or at the very least 
be consistent. We should
once again sit back and see what the initial projects thought was worth 
improving as part of being
included in the foundation.

So once again the initial projects set the scope of what we expect to be 
achievable through participation
in the incubation process.
> Now that was obviously a "do nothing" sort of plan that implied our 
> incubation
> should be instantanious and then our job would be to develop documents
> describing this low bar.
Right, however I at least feel that the bar set by geotools currently is 
a bit too low :-) Oh look I tripped
on it...
> You write "I think we should do as we always planned, use these initial
> projects as a guide to what kinds of transformations should be expected
> as a project goes though incubation."  I'm afraid I don't understand what
> you mean.  Are we looking at the eight projects for best practices that
> we need to apply to the rest of our projects?  Are we still just looking
> for the lowest common denominator?  When we talk about "transformations"
> I think some activity is implied, but without setting some standards why
> do we think any activity will take place?
Understood, I think some activity (especially for these first project) 
will take place simply by wanting
to put our best foot forward and being a "good" rather the "adequate" 
example.
Often we knowing what needs to be done. We know that user documentation 
is needed,
we know that our factory system needs to be complete, etc...
> If we are looking for best practices to apply, what are they?
So to come back to this, lets see what these initial projects come up 
with for
best practices. Writing down the initial ideas would not be a bad start.

Jody