[Incubator] Role of Community requirement in incubation

[Seven (aka Arnulf)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/21/2013 03:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Interesting - I do not think of a project entering incubation as
> any kind of endorsement (indeed it is almost a vote against as it 
> acknowledges that a project has some open risks associated with
> its use). However it is a recognition that OSGeo is in position to
> help.

But effectively it is an endorsement. The difference of "in
incubation" and "graduated" is a teeny weeny little splotch of green
pixels - and most people will not even be able to tell the difference.

> I do not expect all projects that enter incubation will graduate.

Fact is, so far all have (or are still stuck).

> On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

snip

>> 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 would stubbornly refuse to accept a project that does not have a
sizable and balanced community (if I was aware of it in time and
managed to put my veto in). I have seen too many projects go dead in
the water and clog arteries of otherwise healthy organizations to just
rubber stamp things and go ahead.

> Thanks for the excellently written email, and I apologise for being
> out of touch on this discussion.

Jody,
please don't apologize. If you would need to apologize for being out
of touch then the rest of the pack around the Incubation committee
would already sweat in hell (this is another awkward way of saying
thanks for keeping the wheel turning :-).

> How would you like to proceed on this one? Discuss on the email,
> make a motion, remain stalled.

Yes, please. :-)

> It seems we have two discussion on the table:
> 
> 1) Is an open/balanced community a requirement to enter incubation,
> or only to graduate

I suggest to have a short period for people to express their
sentiments and then make this a motion (like Daniel I was under the
impression that this *is* already a requirement for acceptance into
incubation and that we send projects to labs if they still want to
grow).

> 2) Be more bit more prescriptive on what we want from community
> 
> Jody

s/prescriptive/descriptive ?

Let it flow. Maybe we can find some consensus around how to word this.
Honestly, this point is so soft that everybody will eventually have
expressed at least three different opinions if we don't time box it.
But lets try anyway.

In my opinion this will always be an individual, opinionated, erratic,
and ugly decision. For each single new project we accept. It will
simply be impossible to set up significantly quantifiable criteria.
The reason is that projects are so immensely different in scope, need,
architecture language and relevance. And this is Exactly What We Are
Here For, right?

Have fun,
Arnulf

PS:
I keep revisiting the need to revisit our projects after some time but
am not going to bring it up again except in post scripta like this one.

> _______________________________________________ Incubator mailing
> list Incubator at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> 


- -- 
Seven of Nine
http://arnulf.us/Seven
Exploring Body, Space and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFMsVMACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3t4wCfUsiOwj8Bc4QBvKdWRfvsvJHu
kGEAn3ElSe9oV5n3Id5kDHhM16FMbdxc
=nU30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----