[Incubator] Re: Speak up if you think the draft "Project Graduation
Checklist" has any remaining issues
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 23:21:11 EST 2012
Thanks Cameron that looks great.
The only thing I am tempted to do is:
* Either: Place all the "italics" clarifying the intent at the end of each
section - or isolate them into a FAQ. This would make the page more of a
checklist; and give us an avenue for further clarification in the future.
* Or: Double check that all examples are marked in italics
For now I will double check all examples are in italics; and await your
feedback about taking the clarifications out of line with the main
checklist.
Jody
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 Sourcehttp://www.lisasoft.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20120304/506b5b75/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Incubator
mailing list