[Incubator] Suggest QGIS For Graduation

[Jody Garnett]

Robert Bray wrote:
> Time for Bob the absentee mentor to chime in. I've been monitoring the 
> QGIS mailing lists for quite a long time (since I signed on as mentor) 
> and I can say from watching interactions on those lists that the QGIS 
> project is healthy, active, and it has a great community. I've also 
> reviewed portions of the code and examined everything called out in 
> the provinence review. Everything looks pretty clean to me. The 
> software itself is stable and the user documentation is quite good.
>
> All the necessary governance processes are in place and working, but 
> they are not really documented. It would be good to see these 
> documented especially the process for adding/removing developers, but 
> I would not hold up graduation due to lack of documentation.
>
> Cameron's issue below is a valid one, the current QGIS Social Contract 
> is not really a binding agreement. I guess the question I have is how 
> binding does this have to be? I know some of the projects have a more 
> or less legal agreement, e.g. MapGuide, FDO, GeoTools, etc. What's the 
> incubation comitties take on this?
It comes down to what you put in your header files; and if you can back 
it up. Some projects like PostgreSQL accept people as they come, 
everyone holds onto (c) and there is no chance of changing the license 
in the future - sounds like this is the situation QGIS is in?

I don't the incubation list is interested in setting policy; we are 
interested in seeing that the policy has really good documentation and 
is "open and understood" by all. So to contradict your above statement 
graduation in a perfect chance to see the process for "adding/removing" 
developers cleaned up.

All the best,
Jody