[Incubator] Unresponsive/Inactive Projects
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 13:16:44 PDT 2014
I am not sure we would want to put mentors on the spot with the "discretion
to put a project on inactive status". Making a motion keeps communication
clear, and gives us something formal to report to the board.
Right now we are a pretty informal committee, but we can introduce more
procedures if it would help provide guidance. Mentors are in the best
position (as our contact point with a new project) to make such a motion. I
would at least like to try using a motion to "inactivate" a project a
couple of times (to see if it works) before making it into a formal
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
> I'll reach out to the OTB folks again...but I'd like to make a formal
> proposal that Mentors have the discretion to put a project on "inactive"
> status after 3 months of little or no contact.
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Landon Blake <
>> sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Incubation Committee:
>>> What happens when we get an inactive or unresponsive project in
>> Currently nothing!
>> It seems to be a shame to have other projects waiting for an incubation
>>> mentor for months or years while another project isn't moving forward in
>>> the incubation process.
>> I have tried to offset this a bit by moving "incubating projects" to the
>> bottom of the home page. We could move them off the home page completely.
>> Or if you like we could keep a "new projects" bubble on the home page for
>> projects in there first year.
>> The motivation for this is projects getting their initial benefit of
>> joining OSGeo in the form of publicity / marketing due to placement. This
>> was enough for the initial parties interested in GeoServer incubation to
>> "drop out" and leave others to do the work. I am not sure if other projects
>> have a similar experience when joining OSGeo?
>> Is there a way we can remedy this? For example: Put an incubation project
>>> on "inactive" status after a certain number of weeks without communication
>>> to the mentor (or actual progress on incubation tasks). Once the project
>>> reconnects with the mentor, they can be taken off inactive status. The
>>> mentor can then decide to work again with the project, or we could put the
>>> project back on the waiting list.
>> In a PSC setting we have up front that members that are inactive for 6
>> months will be dropped, and can reapply when they have time.
>> I bring this up because I haven't heard from the OTB folks in quite a
>>> while, even after sending a couple of e-mail messages. I'd rather mentor
>>> another willing project while I wait for them to move forward.
>> Shucks, I just updated them in my slides to "active" status since the
>> last edit was in August.
>> Please share your thoughts. I'm just putting the idea on everyone's radar.
>> I think I would be much more comfortable with you, as mentor, putting the
>> project on "hold" status. You are our bridge to that community - and if
>> incubation is not on their radar (or priority) then you are in position to
>> I note that we are a software foundation and are very sensitive to
>> project release schedule. We completely understand a project getting stuck
>> making a release for months (years?) at a stretch.
>> But yeah a simple status update "we are busy making release X" would be a
>> We can respect a development team as volunteers, but we must also respect
>> your availability/energy as a volunteer :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Incubator