[Incubator] Motion: GEOS to Graduate Incubation

[Cameron Shorter]

Thanks Frank,

Based upon your questions, it seems like Geos is close to completion, 
but there are still a couple of things that need to be addressed? (At 
least the writing of a Project Overview for marketing).

Am I right in assuming that we should wait until these issues are 
actioned before considering Geos for incubation?

If ok with you, I'd encourage you or someone to copy the incubation 
answers below into a wiki or similar, so that we retain a more permanent 
record of passing incubation. My feeling is that the most thorough use 
of a checklist is to have answers to each question (as you have done in 
an email) and reviewers just need to check the answers, rather than try 
to work out answers or email questions to a list to get the answers.

On 21/03/2012 9:30 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Frank,
>> Before we pass Geos through incubation, could you please point us at answers
>> to the Incubation checklist:
> Good point!
>
>> Current version here:
>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>
>> Although I think it would be better to make use of the new 2.0 version of
>> the checklist which I think Jody is about to get approved.
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Draft_Project_Graduation_Checklist_Draft
> Let me try to address the draft checklist.
>
> Open:
>
> The code is under an open source license (LGPL).
> Communication is done via the open mailing list and Trac.
> Decision making is open, on the list, though my concern is that the
> project hasn't really had contentious decisions to make so I'm not
> fully confident in the maturity of the project in making tough decisions.
> But I am not concerned about it being too closed.
>
> Active and healthy community:
>
> The developers and users are cooperative and open.
>
> I am concerned about the size of the developer community, though there
> are multiple contributors from different organizations so I think this is ok.
>
>
> Copyright and License:
>
> 1. Again, the code is under an open source license.
> 2. I believe the API documentation is under LGPL by virtue of being
> derived from the source files.  There is relatively little other
> documentation.
> 3. The code is properly vetted as part of the provenence review.
> 4. I do not believe the project keeps a list of copyright holders
> identified in the provenance review, and now that I come on this item
> in the checklist I question it's appropriateness.  We do not normally
> expect projects to keep a list of copyright holders.
> 5. The commiters have agreed to the license policy.  I'm not sure
> about this agreement being archived.  I see this is archived for Chuck
> Thibert, but seemingly not for Steven Wong.
>
> Processes:
>
> 1. The code is under svn.
> 2. The project uses Trac.
> 3. The project has RFCs covering the PSC and committer guidelines.  A
> bit light I must admit.
>
> Release Procedure:
>
> 1. The project does not have a codified release procedure.  It does
> have established practice which involves beta's and RCs for review,
> and a vote before the release is finalized.
> 2.  The project has a significant regression test ("make check").
> 3. The processes are not documented though they are part of the
> project culture.
>
> Board:
>
> A person has not yet been identified to be the project officer.  I
> would suggest the person be Sandro Santilli, and I will discuss this
> with the project now.
>
> Marketing:
>
> The project lacks a "quickstart" page or an "application overview" or
> a one page flier.  I'm not sure quickstart is applicable since the
> project does not have any user facing tools, but at least an overview
> is desirable.
>
> The project is included in most binary distributions including OSGeo
> Live, UbuntuGIS, and OSGeo4W.
>
> Projects:
>
> The GEOS project has good links to GDAL/OGR, PostGIS, Ingres, and
> MapServer projects primarily in the form of common developers.
>
> SAC:
>
> The project is hosted at OSGeo, in the geos.osgeo.org domain and makes
> good use of SAC support.
>
>
> I would note I had imagined the check list being something that the
> mentor would review before recommending a project for graduation, and
> that incubation committee members would take into account when voting.
>   I was not expecting that a detailed report against the items would be
> expected from the mentor or project.
>
>> Of note (from the new checklist), I think that Geos should be addressing the
>> Marketing criteria from the new checklist, which would include creating a
>> Project Overview for Geos:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Draft_Project_Graduation_Checklist_Draft#Marketing
> Agreed, this is a deficiency worth rectifying.
>
> Best regards,


-- 
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