[Incubator] Speak up if you think the draft "Project
Graduation Checklist" has any remaining issues
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 17:45:54 EST 2012
The request is a common one - I should probably put it on the FAQ.
To be clear we are an incubation committee - not a project committee.
Existing projects are the problem of the board - projects end up reporting to the board via a project officer. Projects can also interact with the various other committees - such as the marketing committee.
One thing I really like about this checklist is that it separates out the core responsibilities of the incubation committee (basically a sanity check prior to entering the foundation) from additional OSGeo activities a project can take part in once they have joined.
Bob you are correct that there will be different requirements for joining as the OSGeo foundation grows and learns (from its own mistakes and the mistakes of others). As an example the recent discussion around the use of github conflicting with apache holding projects close to its chest (in order to turn off downloads at the first sign of legal trouble). The OSGeo foundation has decided to stay focused on the open source and spatial side of the equation - and if projects wish to seek hosting elsewhere they free to do so. By the same token the Foundation does not require code assignment like the Eclipse foundation and so on …
New projects deal with the incubation process (and the foundation) as it exists when they join. New projects may ask new questions and change the foundation during their incubation process (for example GeoTools had copyright assignment issues to work through the foundation). New projects don't have to wade through all the same foundation learning processes as the projects that came before them; as such we should be getting better and faster at this :-) Indeed that is what our updated checklist represents - making this faster.
Projects that have entered the foundation are not our responsibility as a committee; if the board wishes to change the standard it holds projects to they can engage existing projects through their project officers (and at the same time engage incubating projects through this committee).
What is our responsibility is helping new projects meet (the admittedly low) requirements required for involvement in the Foundation.
Aside: I did offer to start a project mailing list (basically consisting of the project officers) to make the existing projects easier to contact. There seems to be an assumption that existing projects hang around this email list; it could not be further from the truth - because if they did we would have more mentors to help out :-)
--
Jody Garnett
On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 1:46 AM, Bob Basques wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Is there any sort of plan to backport this process to existing projects (already incubated), if no, I can see arguments arising from differences in the incubation process at some point in the future.
>
>
>
> Seems like these sorts of changes need to always be thought of as applying to all projects globally, whether already incubated or in the process of being incubated, or none. Or at the very least, naming the certification processes (by version maybe?) and applying that to the different products as they incubate. Otherwise the end users have no way of know what incubation process was used for what product.
>
>
>
> You did ask. :c)
>
>
>
> bobb
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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
>
> 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 (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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/20120306/4e15199b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Incubator
mailing list