[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 12:30:16 PST 2016
Thanks for the support/discussion Daniel/Cameron - I am open to a word
other than "OSGeo Technology".
Many of the other words proposed missed the point of the exercise... it is
more useful to think of a project like pgRouting <http://pgrouting.org> or
PROJ <https://trac.osgeo.org/proj/> than to think of 100 lines of
javascript.
--
Jody Garnett
On 8 March 2016 at 12:25, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jody,
> As per Daniel's comment.
> +1 to OSGeo being more inclusive by providing a light weight process for
> joining (in line with your suggestions)
> -1 for the words "OSGeo Technology". Are you open to changing to another
> word than "Technology"?
>
>
> On 9/03/2016 2:22 am, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>
>> Hi Jody,
>>
>> FWIW I like the idea of a more inclusive place such as the former "OSGeo
>> Labs", I was even one of the early supporters of the idea.
>>
>> The only concern that I expressed earlier was to make sure that
>> terminology and expectations are clear for visitors to the site. I don't
>> want this to be perceived as a blocker, it was just a constructive comment
>> to help clarify the wording to make sure that users know what they are
>> getting from what we call OSGeo projects vs OSGeo technology.
>>
>> Perhaps a comparison page to address the differences between Projects vs
>> Technology would help address the possible confusion?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On 2016-03-08 10:13 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>
>>> We are setting something up different that is not OSGeo labs. We are
>>> validating - that these projects are open source and participatory.
>>>
>>> The result is hopefully a larger OSGeo community.
>>>
>>> This direction comes out of a board discussion around being inclusive
>>> and innovative. It could be the OSGeo Technology idea won't fly ...
>>>
>>> Our OSGeo incubation process is set up for stability and safety. While I
>>> respect this it is holding us back from including different categories
>>> of projects.
>>>
>>> I think the larger issue for the board to wrestle with is that the
>>> foundation does not provide enough value to projects. While they are
>>> willing to step up assistance (say incubation sprint or external code
>>> review) we on the incubation list need to look at our priorities on who
>>> we can extend this assistance to.
>>>
>>> I would still like to see projects like pgRouting try their hand at
>>> incubation. I think it is a shame incubation. and the foundation, is
>>> considered hard.
>>>
>>> In fact open source is hard, and we are here to help.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:35 AM Cameron Shorter
>>> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Jody,
>>> I'm actually agreeing with all you are suggesting doing with the
>>> rebranded "OSGeo Labs", except the name "OSGeo Technology". This
>>> name misrepresents the "Self Serve", non-validated concept of "OSGeo
>>> Labs". The name implies "built out of OSGeo Projects". This is a
>>> dis-service to people who come to our site for the first time, a
>>> dis-service to "OSGeo Projects" who now become associated with
>>> immature projects.
>>>
>>> Pick a more accurate name than "OSGeo Technology" and I'd back the
>>> rest of what you are suggesting.
>>>
>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/03/2016 9:55 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is going to be a tough one Cameron ... our brand currently
>>>> has a reputation for turning projects away ... not quality.
>>>>
>>>> The long story short is how to respond to the direction to be
>>>> inclusive. We have two strong characters on this mailing list with
>>>> an axe to grind making it difficult for projects to be part of
>>>> OSGeo. I am very keen on projects *being* open source, and you are
>>>> very keen on making projects safe for users to adopt (project
>>>> viability, quality, open standards).
>>>>
>>>> I am proposing repurposing "OSGeo Labs" (which did not promise
>>>> anything as a brand and got adopted by GeoForAll) as "OSGeo
>>>> Technology" to focus on the open source angle; in order to
>>>> preserve "OSGeo Projects" (and incubation) to focus on the second.
>>>>
>>>> We have a tension here between being inclusive (read easy) and
>>>> transparent (which takes effort).
>>>>
>>>> How would you like to add "transparency" to this mix? We could
>>>> provide a table with website, download, documentation, test
>>>> results - not sure if that would help with transparency?
>>>>
>>>> I know we keep coming back to a rating system on this mailing list
>>>> - I recognize your work in this area for OSGeo Live with the
>>>> introduction of black duck metrics. I imagine you would also be
>>>> happy to phrase things as positive "badges" (for projects that
>>>> have documentation, or quality assurance, or standards
>>>> testing). For quality, documentation and so forth I think we are
>>>> stuck leading by example (and perhaps working with the OGC on
>>>> standards compliance).
>>>>
>>>> On 3 March 2016 at 23:57, Cameron Shorter
>>>> <<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>cameron.shorter at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jody,
>>>> I agree with your suggestion that "Old OSGeo Labs" need not
>>>> have an aim of entering OSGeo incubation.
>>>> However, I object to any project becoming associated with
>>>> OSGeo without it being obvious about the level of quality
>>>> control the project has gone through.
>>>>
>>>> As suggested below, I could knock together 100 lines of
>>>> uncommented, non-working code, give it an open source license,
>>>> and then add a "OSGeo Technology" logo to the home page. And
>>>> most average punters wouldn't know the difference between term
>>>> "OSGeo Project" and "OSGeo Technology". This would result in
>>>> diminishing the current association between OSGeo applications
>>>> and quality, which would be a bad thing.
>>>>
>>>> I feel "OSGeo Labs", "OSGeo Community Builder Projects", or
>>>> shortened to "OSGeo Builder Projects" are less likely to be
>>>> confused with "OSGeo Incubated" projects.
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards, Cameron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/03/2016 2:13 am, Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1, I think these changes make a lot of sense and as part
>>>> of an OSGeo Technology project this feels very inclusive.
>>>>
>>>> -Steve W
>>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2016 9:46 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to change the tone of the page a bit,
>>>> since it "assumes"
>>>> incubation ..
>>>>
>>>> /OSGeo Labs is an umbrella for open source
>>>> geospatial software
>>>> projects that would like to become OSGeo projects
>>>> in the future, but
>>>> that aren't ready for incubation quite yet. It is
>>>> appropriate to
>>>> submit your new or experimental project as an
>>>> OSGeo labs project./
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /The volunteers that work as part of OSGeo Labs
>>>> have the goal of
>>>> helping OSGeo Labs Projects qualify for
>>>> incubation. To reach this
>>>> goal, OSGeo Labs volunteers help OSGeo Labs
>>>> Projects with the
>>>> following tasks:
>>>> /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would become:
>>>>
>>>> /Welcome to OSGeo Technology. The projects listed
>>>> here are part of
>>>> the Open Source Geospatial Foundation and range
>>>> from new
>>>> experimental projects to established pillars of
>>>> our open source
>>>> ecosystem./
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /All projects here meet our goals as an
>>>> organization - they are open
>>>> source (no really we checked) and are inclusive
>>>> and welcoming to new
>>>> contributors./
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>>
>>>> /Projects that go on to establish excellence in
>>>> community building,
>>>> documentation, and governance can enter our
>>>> "incubation" program. /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would also lose the "status" conditions
>>>> seed/seedling/sapling/adult
>>>> and keep OSGeo Technology focused on the basics (open
>>>> source &
>>>> inclusive). The status becomes having the "OSGeo
>>>> Technology" badge nice
>>>> and simple.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking this through a bit more we have one clear
>>>> reason for projects
>>>> to go through with incubation - being recognized by
>>>> the board and having
>>>> an OSGeo Officer listed directly for the project,
>>>> while OSGeo Technology
>>>> projects "share" an officer (as part of "incubation
>>>> committee").
>>>> --
>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>
>>>> On 11 February 2016 at 11:04, Landon Blake
>>>> <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is some good information on what we were
>>>> trying to achieve
>>>> with the old OSGeo Labs on the wiki:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs
>>>>
>>>> I think most of that information on the wiki still
>>>> applies. This
>>>> includes the purpose of labs, how projects get
>>>> started in labs, what
>>>> labs is trying to accomplish, and the criteria to
>>>> determine if your
>>>> project is a good fit for labs.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have major heartburn with what is laid
>>>> out on that wiki
>>>> page? (I'll rename the wiki page as soon as we get
>>>> a new name for labs.)
>>>>
>>>> Landon
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, W
>>>> www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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, Wwww.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61
>>> 2 9009 5099
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20160308/cfc05950/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list