[Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

[Stephen Woodbridge]

On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>
>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>
>
> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
> but it is an important factor to me.
>
> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
> is still at the top of our checklist:
>
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>
> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>
>
> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>
> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>
>
> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
> of that specific requirement.
>
> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>
> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>
>
> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>
> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
> project can give us an update?
>
>
> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the change.

I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is 
mostly orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has 
been very active at times but has never attained any critical mass. 
pgRouting is another project which is in much better shape having a good 
community of users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a 
real struggle to get things done and to build any momentum.

Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any 
project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) 
as opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that 
driving force leaving and having the project collapse.

I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it, 
only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. 
Being able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it 
is clear when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what 
is needed for a self sustaining community.

-Steve W