[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

Sun Mar 15 03:30:55 PDT 2015

Hi Jachym,

I won’t be attending FOSS4GNA.

I suggest that if we are going down this track that we have and open process that allows all interested to provide **constructive criticism** on what people believe is broken.

Perhaps this could be done via the wiki.

We will then require a process to review the comments and respond appropriately. I suggest perhaps a weighting be added to comments from people who have practical experiences with the Incubation process.

This would perhaps provided the basis for determining how to move forward.

I will not have the time available to participate in this exercise, apart from perhaps in a review role.

I personally believe that the onus for this work should reside with those who believe that the current process is broken. I’m not one of these.

Bruce

On 12 Mar 2015, at 6:26 pm, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now does not work (ergo should be fixed)?
> 
> I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want PyWPS to be "somehow" part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions):
> 
> 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
> 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
> 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation 
> 4 - 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?
> 
> Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of "clearing rationale as to what is broken"? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jachym
> 
> čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> napsal:
> 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/20150315/2376fcac/attachment.html>