[Incubator] Incubation Meeting Minutes - Retirement process

[Judit Mays]

Hello,

reading through the proposed retirement process there is one point I
find difficult.

"# Either the Project's Steering Committee, or OSGeo board decide that
the project is no longer viable, or has moved away from OSGeo project
principles."

I think, this is mixing two different events/cases.
* First event: a project is no longer been worked on. Then, the PSC or
the OSGeo Board (if the PSC is not willing or able to act any more)
should announce the project is not being continued.
* Second event: a project is moving away from OSGeo project principles.
In this case, OSGeo might want to act in some certain way. But as the
project might not intend to abandon further work, I would not want that
project to undergo the "retirement process" but rather a "quit OSGeo
process" (to be defined by the board).

Therefore I suggest to rephrase the above sentence to something like:
"# Either the Project's Steering Committee, or OSGeo board (in absence
of the former PSC) decide that the project is no longer viable."

After all, this is about "guidelines for *gracefully* retiring OSGeo
projects".

Leave the potential project straying away from OSGeo principles for a
separate discussion.

Kind regards,
Judit


Cameron Shorter schrieb:
> I've updated the retirement process, including comments from the meeting.
> I think that the process should be ready for voting on. Could people
> please read, and note any issues you may have.
> 
> If there are no issues, I'll ask Frank to propose a vote to accept in a
> week or so.
> 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Project_Retiring_Process&diff=45941&oldid=32985
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have written up the incubation commitee meeting minutes at:
>>
>>   http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/IncCom_Meeting14
>>
>> The full discussion is also linked from there.
>>
>> Cameron's suggestions for revisions to the graduation checklist were
>> met with significant resistance because it was felt that some of the more
>> stringent requirements are too difficult to expect of all projects and/or
>> they are too specific and don't reflect the diversity of approaches in
>> different projects.
>>
>> While I was one of those who was resistant, I think his objective of
>> trying
>> to raise quality bar is reasonable and I wonder how we can do it without
>> being too rigid.  On the other hand Daniel made the point that perhaps it
>> is not practical for OSGeo to police quality and all that we can
>> practically
>> do is to ensure that a community process is setup properly and hope that
>> quality will improve out of that.
>>
>> There also remains a good deal of uncertainty about how to judge
>> suitability
>> of smaller and less mature projects with regard to whether they are
>> suitable
>> for incubation.
>>
>> Best regards,
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20100308/1c3f707a/signature.bin