[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

[Jody Garnett]

Returning to this email thread:

1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
> 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
> 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation


 I am happy with either wiki or IRC meeting to work through these topics.

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?


The last topic is a subject for the projects mailing list (I think we would
need feedback from existing project officers). I note we have a procedure
for retiring a project, individual projects may also have language
returning control of a project to the OSGeo board (in the even the PSC
cannot make quorum).

Reference:

*
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html#dissolution-of-psc
* http://www.osgeo.org/faq

--
Jody Garnett

On 12 March 2015 at 00:26, 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/20150323/8e11825d/attachment.html>