[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

[Landon Blake]

Long thread...I sort of adopted "OSGeo Labs" from whoever had started it.
The concept was to give assistance to a couple types of projects interested
in incubation. The first was a project interested in incubation but not yet
assigned a full-time mentor. The second was for new or immature projects
that needed help building up their community of developers/users before
applying for incubation.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with a name change to avoid
confusion with the academic activities. I know this discussion has be
lengthy, but I think it is a healthy discussion.

Do we need to do more research/have more discussion, or do we want to take
some straw polls on moving forward in a specific direction?

Landon

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jody,
>
> The work keeps falling back on the same people…
>
> We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re
> trying to fix.
>
> I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20150311/0c659dd7/attachment.html>