[Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Fri Mar 22 10:04:16 PDT 2013

The message below should have gone to the whole group.

Landon

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
To: Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>

It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
"healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.

If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
that flexibility.

I would recommend the following steps:

1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.

2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
projects seeking incubation.

I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
incubation, if necessary.

Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.

Landon

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
<woodbri at swoodbridge.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator