[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us
Wed Mar 9 05:34:53 PST 2016
All,
I often thought that incubation should be thought of in this way. By separating out the requirements into logical steps instead of one big pass or fail type of measure.
I’ve suggested in the past that the incubation process could be separated up into nice neat smaller steps, which would lower the barrier to getting started while still allowing for the idea of come one come all approach.
Rather than just two steps, maybe more certification steps should be thought about.
bobb
On Mar 8, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Massimiliano Cannata <massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch<mailto:massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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> <mailto: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<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>cameron.shorter at gmail.com<mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
<mailto: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>>
<mailto: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>>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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> <mailto: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> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, W
www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com/> <http://www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com/>>, F +61 2 9009 5099<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
_______________________________________________
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
--
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>, Wwww.lisasoft.com<http://wwww.lisasoft.com/> <http://www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com/>>, F +61 2 9009 5099<tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
--
--
Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20160309/d2948c06/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list