[Incubator] Pending Incubator Applications

[Daniel Morissette]

Bob,

With respect to taking community feedback into account in some kind of 
pre-incubation stage, could it be as simple as extending OSGeo Labs 
(http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) with a voting mechanism?

The number of votes could be used by the incubation committee to figure 
general community interest, and could also be used by visitors to figure 
which projects are likely the most interesting to play with.

I don't think that should be a required step for all projects before 
entering incubation, but that could help for less mature projects that 
need to spend some time "in training" before getting into incubation.

Just an idea...

Daniel



Blammo wrote:
> All,
> 
> I was just sort of biding my time on this.  Waiting for the committee to 
> get to this point,  I've been reading just about every post though.  So 
> get ready, I'll probably ruffle some feathers.  :c)
> 
> I have some questions for the group before answering about GeoMoose.
> 
> Not all seem to hold with the exact same views as far as what is 
> required for incubation.  GeoMoose is a young project (publicly) and has 
> been promoted as a niche product to date, to County and local 
> governments.   That's not to say that it's not useful for other things, 
> just what the majority of developers and users are focused on.   It's 
> grown in user base mainly based on word of mouth, little to no promotion 
> other than the odd presentation here and there.  It's starting to get 
> reviews form some unexpected areas however.
> 
> Anyway, one of my questions has to do with how the threshold for success 
> of a certain project trait is arrived at?  How do smaller operations get 
> compared to larger ones?   Is there a concrete requirement that some 
> minimum number be involved, etc.   I'm not sure I understand how the 
> greater community usage/developement value of a project is arrived at.
> 
> Another question has to do with what seems to me, to be a fairly hard 
> edged line when dealing with the incubation process acceptance.  There 
> doesn't seem to be a "Project in Training" stage, unless you count the 
> actual vetting, which would in many cases be too short a time span to 
> correct perceived deficiencies.
> 
> A last question deals with how general community feedback is counted, 
> for example, I would have liked to rate some of the past projects myself 
> that I had reviewed for my own purposes, I wasn't really meaning that my 
> vote should count for anything, but just having a chance to comment on 
> things from an end user perspective seems like a good vetting process 
> somewhere in the stream, and could at least identify areas to focus 
> attention on.
> 
> A possible method for applying some of these ideas would be to institute 
> a middle level of incubation, this "Project in Training" piece, that 
> announces projects to the greater community, sort of in a preliminary 
> review stage, and gets through a preliminary level of acceptance.   Then 
> the projects stay in this pre-incubation stage for a while, probably 
> different lengths of time for different projects.  But I see this 
> pre-incubation time span as a method of letting others take a look and 
> see if they are interested in participating at all, or even have 
> comments at all about the project.  This pre-incubation acceptance would 
> have it's own level acceptance that potential users/developers could use 
> as a minimum standard to trust in, and provide any feedback.  I see the 
> actaull Incubation certifcation process becomeing more of a formality in 
> this context in that a project wouldn't move out of pre-incubation until 
> there was a close to 100% chance that it would be accepted.  This seem 
> to give a whole new level of flexibility to the process in my mind.
> 
> Now to sort of answer the original GeoMoose question, I would prefer to 
> start the GeoMoose process out in some manner as described above.   But 
> if there is no chance of that, then we'll need to consider things from a 
> different perspective.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> bobb
> 
> 
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> We currently have three incubator vacancies based on our self imposed 10
>> project limit.  There is no need to fill them all, but I do I think it is
>> time to review our outstanding applications:
>>
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Incubator&keywords=%7Eapplication&order=priority 
>>
>>
>> GeoMOOSE
>> JVNMobileGIS
>> ORCHESTRA
>> deegree
>>
>> Our project evaluation criteria are found at:
>>
>>   http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
>>
>> Beyond that we need mentor volunteers from the committee before we can
>> bring a project into incubation.
>>
>> So, I'm interested in feedback from the committee on our way forward.
>> This would include:
>>  o mentor volunteers for any of the projects
>>  o feedback on the suitability of the above projects for incubation
>>  o suggestions on what to do next (irc meeting?  bring forward a motion?)
>>
>> From my point of view:
>>  1) I think deegree is suitable for OSGeo incubation and I'd like a 
>> volunteer
>>     to act as mentor.
>>
>>  2) I'd like someone on the committee (presumably someone knowledgable 
>> about
>>     Java) to do an indepth review of JVNMobileGIS to give us a sense 
>> of it's
>>     maturity, and suitability.
>>
>>  3) I think we still lack sufficient understanding of the ORCHESTRA 
>> project
>>     to move forward.  I'm not too sure how to get over this hump.
>>
>>  4) I'd like to hear if Bob would still like to proceed with GeoMOOSE
>>     incubation - I think there was some uncertainty.  If so, I think 
>> someone
>>     on the committee should evaluate GeoMOOSE.
>>
>> Best regards,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/