[Incubator] Speak up if you think the draft "Project Graduation
Checklist" has any remaining issues
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 16:27:32 EST 2012
I've updated the draft "Project Graduation Checklist", in line with
comments from the last incom meeting.
If anyone has any outstanding comments on this document, can you please
say so.
I'd like to see it approved at the next Incom meeting.
Latest draft here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Draft_Project_Graduation_Checklist_Draft&oldid=61029
Diffs to last review:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Draft_Project_Graduation_Checklist_Draft&action=historysubmit&diff=61029&oldid=59953
My notes against the meeting logs below:
13:34:51 jgarnett: Back to agenda .. 4 ) Graduation Checklist -
review and approve
13:35:00 jgarnett: Readable copy here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Draft_Project_Graduation_Checklist_Draft
13:35:01 sigq: Title: Draft Project Graduation Checklist Draft -
OSGeo Wiki ( at wiki.osgeo.org )
13:35:19 jgarnett: Can I ask if anyone has had a chance to
review this? ( Or the earlier red shifted version )
13:35:46 pspencer_: minor comments: the Intellectual Property
section first sentence makes no sense with the bullets that follow?
13:36:50 jgarnett: let me try and keep up
13:37:22 jgarnett: pspencer_: The first sentence is about all
that made sence to me ( that is the reason we are checking; to ensure we
are able to release )
13:37:39 jgarnett: under processes the bullet points are
supposed to describe what we look for in the developer guide
Pagameba has corrected:
"We need to ensure that project owns or otherwise has obtained the
ability to release:"
to:
"We need to ensure that project owns or otherwise has obtained the
ability to release the project code by completing the following steps:"
13:35:56 : * FrankW_ has reviewed.
13:36:08 pspencer_: under processes, should the last two bullets
be numbers instead?
CameronShorter: I'd like to see a list like:
1. xxx
2. xxx
3. xxx
3.1 xxx
3.2 xxx
Howerver, unless we hard code the list numbers, media wiki only allows:
1. xxx
2. xxx
3. xxx
1. xxx
2. xxx
I think this second option is not very good, hence rolling back to lists of:
1. xxx
2. xxx
3. xxx
*. xxx
*. xxx
pspencer, if you fell strongly enough about this to push for a change,
then feel free to suggest your preference.
13:36:21 jsanz: the intellectual property point 4 makes not a
lot of sense to me
13:36:53 FrankW_: I agree with jsanz that IP point 4 should be
struck
13:38:22 jgarnett: jsanz: Apache retains the ability for the
their foundation to shut off downloads in the event a legal complaint is
made; this is to prevent an escalating damages calculation and to show
the ability of acting in good faith.
13:38:41 jgarnett: ( not saying I like that; just that is
something to consider in terms of protecting the foundations … a$$sets )
13:38:49 FrankW_: I don't see any need for a project to do
something in advance to enable this.
13:39:02 FrankW_: If something comes up then reasonable efforts
would be made to withdraw downloads.
13:39:10 jsanz: they mean shut off THEIR download servers, right?
13:39:46 jgarnett: FrankW: I think the check about downloads is
more to have a procedure in place.
13:40:03 pspencer_: sounds like documenting how the project will
deal with blocking legal issues is needed
13:40:10 FrankW_: I am not aware of any project with an a-priori
procedure in place nor do I see any special need for this.
13:40:17 jgarnett: jsanz: In case you are wondering; we *did*
have this happen during the geoTools review ( we found we were
distributing some jars we were not allowed to and had to withdraw
several years with of downloads )
13:40:53 jgarnett: FrankW: I would be fine with removing it; it
is really about the board's expectations.
In line with discussion above, and because I agree with sentement, the
following has been removed:
"# The project has the ability to shut off downloads if a blocking legal
issue is found."
13:36:22 jgarnett: heh
13:36:26 pspencer_: typo in Processes #2 ( > at end of sentence )
13:36:47 jgarnett: Some typos may be me trying to reduce the
document to readable form ...
Fixed by Pagameba
13:37:55 FrankW_: I actually also do not think there should be
any discussion of checking for patents.
13:39:19 jgarnett: FrankW: I agree the patent check is bullshit;
you need lots of money to do that; and I don't want to see that in a
checklist unless the foundation is hiring professionals to do the check.
CameronShorter: The patent check line is not in our last 1.0 version of
this document. So already incubated projects will not have passed this
criteria. I agree it should be removed.
Removed: "# The project has checked for inappropriate use of trademark
or patents and the results of such checks have been documented."
13:42:01 jgarnett: Thinking: I am not really keen on having a
shared editing session ( since this is supposed to be a meeting )
13:42:17 jgarnett: Suffice to say I think the document is not
ready; and I don't think we can make it ready in the next 20 mins.
13:42:29 pspencer_: agreed
13:42:47 jgarnett: With that in mind; could we continue with our
meeting. And if people are keen we can return to editing roulette.
13:42:57 FrankW_: ok
13:42:58 jsanz: yes, but I think is pretty good as is
13:43:01 jsanz: ok
On 10/02/12 10:28, Jody Garnett wrote:
> The response was very positive! You can check the IRC log...
>
> We could not approve it in the meeting as:
> a) Although I tried to isolate it into a single readable page; there
> were still typos.
> b) People were still confused about IP checks; and pushed back about
> the ability to shut off code (basically an apache thing we can choose
> to ignore)
>
> Rather then watch them edit line by line; we proceeded with the rest
> of the meeting agenda.
>
> If you want to ask the same question on the incubator list; we can fix
> the typos; and line up the IP section with the reality of a volunteer
> driven organisation.
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 6:02 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
>> Hi Jody,
>> What were the results of the last incubation committee meeting?
>> In particular, I'm interested to know where we are up to with:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Graduation_Checklist
>>
>> What still needs to be done to get it approved?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20120304/d7796508/attachment.html
More information about the Incubator
mailing list