[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Massimiliano Cannata
massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Tue Mar 8 15:09:49 PST 2016
Just 2 cents
But maybe the point is not to have project not verified but with lower
level of requirements. Could a project graduate for being an osgeo
technology still making a code provenance even if is a one man code?
Maxi
Il 08/Mar/2016 21:30, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160309/3aef397f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list