[Incubator] Incubation Meeting

Bob Basques Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us
Wed Mar 3 14:07:21 EST 2010 

All, 

The 12 Step (reminds me of another list :c) list . . . . 

Points number 5 and 6 just seem so subjective, like everyone could answer them completely differently. 

Whoo, number nine leaves a lot of room for arguments too, especially with regard to past incubation processes. 

Geez, been a long time since I looked at these. 

BTW, I'm the Two plus year old incubation project applicant, we're in no hurry as a project, which should be slightly telling to the incubation team, I mean, where might our little project be now if we we're incubated earlier.   But it is interesting how the process has gone to date.  I've purposely not pursued the group regarding moving the process along, maybe good, maybe bad in the long run.  There are some older posts from me in the archives about my reservations regarding the process.  Most of them were with regard to smaller projects, and while our little project is still steaming along, at the time, it was very new on the block, and there seemed to be a general notion that it might not be ready for prime time.   

Some of those old posts also referred to some ideas about having a middle level process, before incubation and after application, that could contain a much larger list of projects that may or may not make it into incubation.  I think this idea deserves some more thought as well, since some of the smaller projects might benefit from partnering up with other projects.   A short list of statistics (as part of the application process) about a project would be nice too, what language written in, what's the intent, what's the product, stuff like that. 

In the end, we're still here, and bigger than we were.  There wasn't anyone doing things the way were were then, and there still isn't to my knowledge..   

I'm very interested to see what comes out of the meeting, and any new initiatives that might be brought forward. 

bobb 





>>> Claude Philipona <claude.philipona at camptocamp.com> wrote:

Hello,

I think it would be good clean up the tickets list

http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Incubator&order=id ( http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Incubator&order=id )

some are not up to date.

On a more general level, I think it is important to apply the same
rules and decision process for each tickets. It should be interesting
to analyze each proposed project regarding the different criteria and
to decide if they stay in the list waiting for an available mentor, or
if they don't meet the criteria. In fact some projects have tickets
flag as "new" without any feedback since more than two years. It
doesn't make sense to leave them for ever without any feedback or
decision.

Each project should be analyzed with objectivity regarding each of the
12 points mentioned at the page
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html

   - The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects
need to specify their choice for a type of license).
   - The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
   - The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial
applications.
   - Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality code).
   - Project already has a substantial user community.
   - Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
   - Project members are aware of, and implements support for,
relevant standards (ie. OGC, etc).
   - Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
   - Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.
   - Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion
   - Project has contributions and interest from more than just one
company/organization.
   - Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure
(code repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation
support infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent with
the foundation.

It would be good have template for this factual analysis and to
systemically fill it.

>From my point of view, OSGeo should also make sure the there are
synergies between OSGeo projects, for example use of existing
libraries or already incubated project.

Sorry, but I will in the train during the meeting. I'll see if I have
some network.

Claude



On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 17:52, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Judit,
>>
>> this is for GeoMajas *entering* incubation.
>>
>> The link from the incubator wiki page to pending applications is:
>>
>>
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Incubator&keywords=%7Eapplication&order=priority ( http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=Incubator&keywords=%7Eapplication&order=priority )
>>
>> which seems to be slightly different from your query but probably the same
>> actual applications.
>>
>> I believe that applications are considered on a first-come-first-serve
>> basis
>> with a couple of caveats, the primary one being that a project needs to
>> find
>> a mentor.  As this is on a volunteer basis, and mentors should be at least
>> moderately interested in but not related to the project, the older
>> applications will not necessarily find a mentor before newer projects.
>>
>> In this case, I've taken an interest in GeoMajas partly because Pieter was
>> on the list looking for a mentor when I was thinking that I had some time
>> to
>> be a mentor again and partly because the project is in my realm of
>> interest
>> (web apps) without intersecting directly with my area of expertise (I
>> don't
>> do a lot of java).
>>
>> Also, not every project that applies for incubation is actually ready to
>> actually enter incubation based on our somewhat vague criteria. While not
>> every aspect of a project has to be 'graduation-ready' before entrance
>> into
>> incubation, a project does have to demonstrate some basic components that
>> indicate it *will* be able to graduate some day.  In my mind, project
>> maturity is a key element to this.  Well established projects with a
>> diverse
>> developer and user base are more suitable candidates than new,
>> experimental
>> projects that have yet to establish themselves with a community.
>
> Judit,
>
> I agree with everything Paul says.
>
> So our limiting factor for entering incubation currently is availability
> of mentor volunteers.  We can/should consider (ie. vote on) any application
> for which we have a volunteer.
>
> At this point we are basically applying the criteria Paul mentions and a
> few others listed at the following link to GeoMajas.
>
>  http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
>
> 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 ( http://pobox.com/~warmerdam )
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20100303/05cf8df8/attachment.html

More information about the Incubator mailing list