[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 10:34:15 PST 2015
It is also interesting to see the Apache incubator project list:
On 02/26/2015 08:24 PM, Tom Kralidis wrote:
> 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 ):
> - 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  as an example tells me there is
> an opportunity to grow.
>  https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040
>  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 Garnett
>> On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com>
>>> On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing
>>>> list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name):
>>>> 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).
>>> 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 ...
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
Remote Sensing Laboratory
National Technical University of Athens
More information about the Incubator