[Incubator] Re: Speak up if you think the draft "Project Graduation
Checklist" has any remaining issues
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Sun Mar 4 05:16:26 EST 2012
On 04/03/12 15:21, Jody Garnett wrote:
> 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.
Jody, I'm nervous about this suggestion, as I think it will make the
process of reading the document disjointed and difficult, as readers
would need to jump from checklist, to FAQ, then back to checklist again.
> 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.
My preference is to be making use of italics as you suggest.
>
> Jody
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto: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
> <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
> <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 <http://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 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
>>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>>>
>>> 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 <tel:%2B61%20%280%292%208570%205050>
> Mob:+61 (0)419 142 254 <tel:%2B61%20%280%29419%20142%20254>
>
> 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/c8885386/attachment.html
More information about the Incubator
mailing list