[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

[Tom Kralidis]

Agreed.  I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more
agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake
up call for me [1]):

- review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project
- update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this
should not come at the cost of software quality)

Looking at Apache's project list [2] as an example tells me there is
an opportunity to grow.

..Tom

[1] https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040
[2] http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html

>
>[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com
>Mon Feb 16 11:50:47 PST 2015
>
>    Previous message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>    Next message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
>    Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
>I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is
>very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating
>from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements.
>
>I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating
>a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to
>demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing
>organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point
>out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the
>work will in-fact continue).
>--
>Jody
>
>--
>Jody Garnett
>
>On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to dig a bit more into the topic "more fine incubation"
>>> procedure and former "OSGeo Labs" (now it has no name is slowly
>>> forgotten in past, but you can find more at
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs)
>>>
>>> I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing
>>> list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name):
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating
>>>
>>> Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all
>>> of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow
>>> between the steps "up" and "down", related to their current living phase.
>>>
>>> I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow
>>> more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors
>>> could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also
>>> related to the "certification" topic (even not people, but software).
>>>
>>> Jachym
>>>
>>
>> This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller
>> projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own
>> because the community is weak.
>>
>> pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a
>> core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder
>>
>> pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have
>> contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been
>> hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and
>> project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong
>> enough community to be able to graduate.
>>
>> It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look
>> for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where
>> their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that
>> there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but
>> that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and
>> that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to
>> harvest this.
>>
>> Anyway, something to think about ...
>>