[Incubator] incubation stages considered

Sat Sep 24 04:50:35 EDT 2011

I love the idea of a tutorial to help prospective projects ... since I have mentored a number of projects I may be able to write something up. It amounts to (a) open source license (b) project name and contact details (c) headers in order (d) any form of open development.

I also talked to Bob; it was interesting/shocking that he felt the incubation requirements were a bit much. For example the need to have a steering committee felt a bit much without a larger project to direct. I don't think we need a steering committee; we just need a project to write down how decisions are made and more importantly how a prospective developer can take part.

As for the staged approach:
- I think what we currently have to reflect OSGeo goals is a very low bar already (open source license; some contact details and some written procedure for open development).
- The part that is taking a while; watching projects review that they "own" the code they are distributing; does not especially feel like something unique to OSGeo and the incubation process (it probably should of been done from the start before a download was offered). Perhaps we can scare up another foundation with a mandate and resources to help in this respect?

I do not want to see the incubation committee farm out additional "gates" to other committees (such as the Live DVD) as that sets a moving target - and a much more difficult hill to climb - than what we expect out of incubation. (I am trying to stay firm on this as I do not want to see more required of projects with out resources/funds/help to make it happen. This is in part why I do not want the incubation committee to ask more of projects; we currently are asking more than we are assisting).

To be blunt the level of effort required for the live dvd is a bit out of hand; and that group (amazingly) provides helpful volunteers to assist projects get their material included. I would really not want to make that an expectation of the incubation process.

So that is my line in the sand; however ...
- I would like to see the foundation chase after the goal of supporting open source spatial; as such a sandbox or labs area would be a *great* addition.
- I don't think we have the volunteer power to assist projects coming into open source for the first time. We may be better to leave that to other foundations such as FSF which actually has legal advice on hand.
- we do have project officers; and the board is free to require more of participation beyond an annual report. That *is* our follow up process currently - perhaps more will be required in the future.
- I have suggested a "projects" email list a couple of times to try and make communication easier.
- It would be good to ask projects that have been in incubation for more than a year what is taking so long?

The incubation process is really very light compared to anything[1] else[2] I can find; we could do a better job explaining - but we also offer a mentor for one on one support. 
-- 
Jody Garnett
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process_2011.php
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#incubator

On Friday, 23 September 2011 at 6:56 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> 
> All, 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts revolved around the idea of setting up stages of incubation vs the all or nothing approach (sorry, that's what it seems like from the outside :c) used currently. 
> 
> 
> 
> Setting up incubation milestones, or gates (as mentioned by Daniel) which would be used to move projects along the incubation process at an albeit seemingly slower rate, but with much more time to measure the heartiness of the project and for the project to get used to the way OSGEO likes to see thing happen. 
> 
> 
> 
> The big benefits I see to this approach are that the incubation committee members and the project stewards don't need to figure out everything up front all at once. A project approaches a milestone, gets the attention of the incubation committee and moves through that one milestone separately from all the other milestones on the way to full incubation. This seems like it could work with no one project steward being required for each project. All committee members could participate in all milestones (or not). 
> 
> 
> 
> This gated milestone approach, is to a degree, fairly flexible with regard to adding or removing requirements as well. Discussion of such items can be carried out independent of each other. One related thought I had would be to make the LiveDVD inclusion of the product as gated item in the incubation process for example. Further, I think there needs to be some follow-on work after the incubation process. When are projects evaluated during their post incubation lifetime. Shouldn't there be a process whereby existing OSGEO projects are periodically surveyed using similar criteria to the incubation process. Could use the military type of designation and add slash marks to project pages for number of years in OSGEO (or something :c) ). 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway Daniel and I had a good discussion on this topic at FOSS4G. 
> 
> 
> 
> bobb 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com (mailto:dmorissette at mapgears.com)> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  I had a similar discussion at FOSS4G with Bob Basques from GeoMoose. One
> idea that came up was a kind of "Getting ready for OSGeo incubation
> tutorial". Basically documenting all requirements and how to
> achieve/meet them.
> 
> Bob might be interested in contributing to such a tutorial as GeoMoose
> (eventually) goes through incubation.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 11-09-19 01:06 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > Hey Guys do we have any good references for people that are considering
> > taking an internal project open source? I had two inquiries during the
> > conference...
> >
> > It is not exactly in our mandate in the incubation committee (as we try
> > and recognise project that are all set up; and check that things are in
> > order - and help out if needed). That is slightly different projects
> > that have not started out at all (as there is nothing for us to check).
> >
> > I feel that aiding this process would be very much in keeping with OSGeo
> > goals; can any one recommend a good venue?
> >
> > --
> > Jody Garnett
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Incubator mailing list
> > Incubator at lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org)
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> 
> 
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org)
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org (mailto: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/20110924/dc9dc7b4/attachment.html