[Incubator] Suggested tweaks to incubator docs

Thu Mar 13 01:49:22 PDT 2014

Okay I see the confusion, the evaluation criteria did not really match up
with the initial application. Instead the evaluation criteria was covering
the same ground as the graduation checklist.

I have a draft of the project status template:

* http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Status_Draft

In order to reduce overlap with the project graduation checklist I have
given this document a new focus - namely setting up a project when it first
enters incubation.

Comments? Even if it just encouragement that we should continue in this
direction.
--
Jody

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Landon - I think we missed something when combining [1]  and [2].
>
> The idea is to still ask the questions, but to also write down (in
> italics) the criteria used to evaluate the answer. Since many of the
> questions directly ask about the criteria this results in an easy to
> understand document. And can be used to identify questions in the status
> template (such as infrastructure) that are off topic.
>
> Example(s):
>
> *Q: Is there a functioning user support mechanisms (ie. mailing list)?*
>
> Indicate the available user support mechanisms, and whether they seem to
> be functioning well (are getting used and get answers).
>
>
> *Desirable: Project already has a substantial user community.*
>
>
> Q: Are source and binary downloads for the package available?
>
> yes/no (and any caveats)
>
> *Required: The code is under an OSI approved license*
> *Required: Data & doc projects need to specify their choice for a type of
> license.*
>
>
> *Q: Has a Project Steering Committee been formed, and given control of the
> project?*
>
> yes/no, indicate members and whether it has effective control.
>
> *Desirable: **Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative
> fashion.*
>
>
>
> *Q: How many active developers are there? Are they from multiple
> organizations?*
>
> Indicate number and some organizations involved.
>
> *Desirable: *Project has contributions and interest from more than just
> one company/organization.
>
>
>
> I still prefer the graduation checklist[3] to these earlier documents. It
> also covers infrastructure (as an option) near the end.
> --
> Jody
>
> [1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/statustemplate.html
> [2] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
> [3]
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Landon Blake <
> sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've combined the Application Questions and Evaluation Criteria for
>> Incubation into a single wiki page, as was suggested. I also took care of
>> the edits recommended by Jody. The result is here:
>>
>> wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Evaluation_Criteria
>>
>> Please review and comment so I can take care of any changes and we can
>> have a vote to officially adopt.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Landon
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Landon Blake <
>> sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me see if I can get this taken care of this week.
>>>
>>> Landon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Cameron Shorter <
>>> cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Landon,
>>>> You are welcome to edit the wiki (which is unofficial), we need a
>>>> motion to move the wiki version approved and set as an official document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/03/14 02:35, Landon Blake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do we need some type of motion to make the edits, or does someone just
>>>> need to do it?
>>>>
>>>> Landon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Cameron Shorter <
>>>> cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/02/14 06:10, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14-02-19 7:04 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evaluation Criteria:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not understand why "Project is prepared to develop in an open and
>>>>>>> collaborative fashion." was cut, is this not the sticking point we
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> run into a couple times now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel that we could combine the questionnaire and the evaluation
>>>>>>> criteria. By using italics in the template.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same question here. I also don't understand why this one was taken
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, I think there are two items that were cut and are important
>>>>>> enough to justify being there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  # Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative
>>>>>> fashion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  # Project has contributions and interest from more than just one
>>>>>> company/organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Yes, valid points by both Jody and Daniel.
>>>>> Jody, I agree that merging these two documents as you suggest will
>>>>> simplify the process and future maintenance. It is a very good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>>>> LISAsoft
>>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>>>
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cameron Shorter,
>>>> Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>>> LISAsoft
>>>> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>>> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>>>
>>>> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20140313/3423c1d2/attachment.html>