[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

[Cameron Shorter]

Jachym,
Re "3: what next after incubation": This is a hard one to maintain. 
Effort is required to continually review a project's status to see if it 
is still worthy of being an OSGeo project. To a certain extent, we have 
a bit of that in the OSGeo-Live project, in that we require each project 
to ensure their project continues to run on the latest OSGeo-Live 
release. If not, it is moved to the " Available from prior OSGeo-Live 
releases" on our contents page.

Also a partial answer to the "star" system is to reference OpenHub 
metrics for projects, which show project activity.
See: http://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html
Note, these are not perfect, as not all projects are represented 
correctly on OpenHub.

On 12/03/2015 5:19 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
> If we could add to your list:
>
> 4. Attract more volunteers to incubation
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 11 March 2015 at 06:05, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com 
> <mailto:jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Whatever,
>
>     I would like to achieve:
>
>     1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
>     2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
>     3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation,
>     because I do not believe in "and lived happily ever after" - to
>     become the project, certain level (checklist) has to be reached.
>     But what if the project looses it's community?
>
>     The "still-callled-star" system I started to work on, was inspired
>     by Cameron notes (just FYI)
>
>     J
>
>     st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett
>     <jody.garnett at gmail.com <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> napsal:
>
>         I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this.
>
>         I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I
>         think it is producing good results) and relaxing the
>         requirement for a mentor (which is an embarrassing bottleneck).
>
>         Rather than a "star" system I think we can highlight how far
>         along in the checklist each project is.
>
>         --
>         Jody Garnett
>
>         On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman
>         <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
>         <mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             We need to be careful when playing around with our
>             'Incubation Procedure'.
>
>             It causes considerable angst and disruption to both
>             mentors and to the relevant communities going through
>             incubation when we keep trying to change to rules.
>
>             From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while
>             subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in
>             guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community
>             aspire to.
>
>             When a project graduates from incubation, it gains
>             considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial
>             project. It is a badge of honour for the project and
>             something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this?
>
>             While there are aspects that could improve, what is the
>             rationale for wanting to change the process (together with
>             the inevitable disruption that follows)?
>
>             If we are serious about changing the incubation rules,
>             then a more formal methodology such as those referred to
>             by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate.
>
>             Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this
>             forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.....?
>
>             Are there any volunteers?
>
>             Bruce
>
>             [1]
>             http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html
>
>
>
>             ===============
>
>             I recently came across a number of "Open Source Maturity Methodologies",
>             which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or
>             referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes:
>
>             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Discuss mailing list
>             Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>             http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Discuss mailing list
>         Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
>         http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20150312/ade8d0cf/attachment.html>