[Incubator] Fwd: Follow Up on PyCSW Application: Community Requirements?

[Landon Blake]

The message below was meant for the committee, not just Cameron.

Sorry.

Landon


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Incubator] Follow Up on PyCSW Application: Community Requirements?
To: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>


I think Cameron's requirements sound reasonable. I'm +1.

After we've tallied the votes, I'll let pycsw know our final decision.
If they aren't admitted to incubation at this time, I'll work with
them on community building in the incubation labs.

Hopefully we can get votes from the other committee members this week.

Landon

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Landon,
> Thanks for pushing this motion through. To facilitate a decision, I propose
> a motion:
>
> Motion: That PyCSW is showing a lot of early promise toward becoming an
> OSGeo project, but before officially moving into OSGeo Incubation, we would
> like to see the project mature, in particular we'd like to see a greater
> breadth of community, especially a greater breath of organisations
> contributing to the project, before the project starts incubation.
> As such I propose that PyCSW is not included into incubation yet.
>
> +1 Cameron Shorter
>
> Background:
> * Metrics: https://www.ohloh.net/p/pycsw
> * I'd be looking to see something like 3+ different organisations providing
> sustained support for the project (as sponsors or providing developers) for
> 1+ years by the time a project completes incubation.
>
> Of note, I think it valuable for projects to start building up the
> incubation processes such that passing through incubation will be easy in
> future.
>
>
> On 01/01/13 04:43, Landon Blake wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to follow up on the PyCSW application for incubation. I
>> believe I can summarize the current situation in this way:
>>
>> 1) PyCSW has applied for incubation.
>> 2) They have a willing mentor.
>> 3) They are waiting for a response from our committee on concerns
>> about their level of community involvement.
>>
>> We need to get back to the project team with a decision on their
>> incubation application. If we feel the project isn't ready for
>> incubation because they lack an active community, we should make that
>> clear to them. If this is our decision, we should also:
>>
>> 1) Make our criteria for evidence of an active community clear, so the
>> project can set some goal posts.
>> 2) Invite the project to contact us with regular updates on their
>> progress towards these goals.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, we feel that communnity building is something
>> they can do DURING incubation, we should accept their application and
>> address this concern with their mentor so he can work with the project
>> team to address it before incubation graduation.
>>
>> Either way, I think we owe the pycsw project team a decision soon.
>>
>> Landon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator