[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Incubator] Defining the Marketing requirements for OSGeo Incubation

[Cameron Shorter]

  Thank you Frank for this very constructive feedback.
I encourage others to step in, as the workload impact on projects that 
I'm suggesting is high.

On 8/11/2010 3:31 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> I'd appreciate some review of the proposed Marketing requirements and 
>> comment on whether I'm on track or not:
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Marketing_Artefacts
>
>
> Cameron,
>
> Some brief feedback:
>
>
> OSGeo Live
>  - It isn't clear why OSGeo Live is given this special treatment as 
> opposed
>    to other packaged environments like OSGeo4W, Debian GIS, or Ubuntu 
> GIS.
Good question.
Currently all OSGeo applications (as opposed to libraries) are included 
on OSGeo-Live, so all these applications will pass this proposed 
graduation criteria.
This is not the case for DebianGIS or UbuntuGIS. I haven't checked if 
all applications are included on OSGeo4W.
I would like to see this criteria extended to OSGeo4W at some point, and 
would like to hear suggestions on how this should be made possible.

I'd like to see all projects packaged  for DebianGIS and UbuntuGIS (and 
for RPMs) but it is a lot more work and we are not there yet.

I can update the wiki to mention other packaging systems as a potential 
future incubation requirement.

>  - Are libraries used by other applications on the live CD expected to be
>    packaged (ie. GDAL, PROJ.4)?

The focus on OSGeo-Live is to allow potential new users trial GeoSpatial 
Open Source software for the first time.
It is not targeting programmers.
So if the GDAL/PROJ.4 software libraries can be accessed via a user 
interface of some sort, then they can be included. Otherwise it is not 
appropriate for OSGeo-Live.

However, I do think it would be appropriate to include "Project 
Overview" documentation about libraries on OSGeo-Live.

>
> Application Overview
>  - It is unclear to me how this overview differs from the one page 
> hand-outs
>    projects are already expected to prepare in cooperation with 
> marketing?
They are aimed to be the same thing.

I actually started from the one page marketing docs in building the 
"Application Overview" template.
My intent has been to create 1 page pdfs from the RST source - but as 
yet I haven't mastered the RST printing template. (Help in this area 
would be welcome).

That said, I now feel that one page paper versions of project overviews 
are less important than HTML pages.
My experience at OSGeo conference booths is that printing 20 copies of 
all the 30 or so OSGeo projects is expensive, and old paper Overviews 
quickly get outdated and can't be handed on to the next conference. 
Also, people were picking up the OSGeo-Live DVD (with lots of packages 
on it) instead of lots of bits of paper.

>
> Application Quick Start
>  - Scanning a couple, it seems these are tailored to the OSGeo live
>    environment - should this just be rolled into the OSGeo Live packaging
>    requirements?

Possibly.
I hope that the Quick Starts will be a stepping stone toward more 
comprehensive training material, which need not be OSGeo-Live specific.
However, as you suggest, at this point we could role it into the 
OSGeo-Live requirements.

>
> OSGeo-Live Lightening Presentation
>   - This sounds ok to me.  Key items are that these slides can generally
>     be derived from the existing overview page and the projects only need
>     to provide review.
>
> Project Specific Presentatiion
>   - In some ways I like this more than some of the other items, though 
> it is
>     also likely one of the biggest work items.
>   - I assume this is intended to be a presentation that anyone with 
> moderate
>     familiarity with the project could give with an hour or so of 
> review and
>     preparation - is that right?  Will it include a suggested script 
> to go
>     with the slides?
>   - Are there guidelines for format (odp/pdf?)
>   - Where will these live?   Who is responsible for nagging for these?

I've noted that the Project Presentations are desirable, but not a 
graduation criteria.
It is not a graduation criteria mainly because at this point, I don't 
think OSGeo marketing/incubation committees have the resources to review 
these presentations.

>
> OGC Standard Overview
>   - I had expected there to be an aspect of this indicating which 
> standards
>     are supported by which OSGeo projects but I could not find this.
Indeed, such a table would be valuable. I was anticipating a table 
matching standards with applications would be included in the Technology 
Comparisons, when these eventually are developed.

>   - I observe that http://live.osgeo.org/standards/wms_overview.html 
> lists
>     *only* proprietary software packages - what is the rationale for 
> that?

Good observation. We should address that. The reason is that the OGC 
wrote the standards overviews based upon their stock material.
The last write up of the OGC standards didn't get much review. I'm 
hoping that we can have a much wider review for the next release.

>
> Logo
>   - These seem somewhat OSGeo-Live specific. I think we already have a 
> wiki
>     page somewhere for projects to provide SVG or image logos don't we?

If we do have a place for logos, I'd like to know about it.
While the logos are used by OSGeo-Live, I expect them to be used in many 
other places too. Whenever building a powerpoint presentation about 
OSGeo projects, it is very useful to have access to all logos in one 
location.

>
> Graphical Image
>   - Once again this seems somewhat OSGeo Live specific.

noted.

>
> Technology Comparisons
>   - It seems to me there is still a lot to work out with regard to how 
> this
>     would work, and we would be better treating particular comparisons
>     individually.
>   - Any effort to compare projects must be very careful to be fair to
>     different projects, which is very hard to do, or we will end up
>     causing more controversy than we get benefit.

Agreed, there is still quite a bit of work to be done here, however I 
predict it to be one of the most widely read material if it is to be 
created, as one of the first questions users have is "What do I need to 
solve my XXX business problem".

Hence I think it is something we should encourage people to develop.

>
> Case Studies
>   - I would like to see us (OSGeo) provide some support for preparing
>     case studies, especially for situations using a mixture of 
> technologies.

Yes, agreed. As noted, I don't see this as being an incubation 
requirement yet.
>
> Training
>   - This seems to unstructured yet to be in this list.

I think training is important, which is why it is noted as desirable, 
but I don't see us being ready to mandate it for a few years yet.
>
>
> ---
>
> Overall, I feel like things are too OSGeo-Live focused though I 
> realize that
> OSGeo Live has been pushing the envelope with regard to these materials.

> I'd
> like to see the Marketting Committee maintaining a repository of:
>  - project overviews (one pages for print and other use)
>  - project logo (presumably used in the overview)
>  - project snapshot (presumably used in the overview)

At the moment that repository exists. It is currently stored in the 
OSGeo-Live svn repository.
We could potentially move to a marketing directory, however I'm not sure 
we gain much.

>
> I am agreeable with requiring every project to work with the marketting
> committee to provide this material, and periodically to upgrade it.
>
> I would also like to *encourage* projects to get themselves into
> distributions including OSGeo4W, OSGeo-Live, and some of the
> specific linux package systems.

Agreed, I'd be interested to work with you on how we should word this.

>
> Best regards,

Thanks Frank, I really appreciate your feedback.

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com