[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 10:06:29 PST 2016
Okay I got a naming idea - that should at least work. I thank everyone for
this difficult discussion - much more important to set expectations and
scope now (then later once the program has gone live).
I initially liked "Innovator" - sadly it had too much of an RnD focus and
the resulting projects would not come across as stable. So not especially
suitable of pgRouting. Their is also the danger that established osgeo
projects would feel left out such "innovation" has a nice marketing ring to
it - Jeroen expressed this valid concern.
I liked "Technology" - taking things firmly in the direction of established
(but too busy or too small for incubation). Very suitable for projects like
JTS, PRJ or pgRouting. Cameron expressed concern on branding confusion with
respect to foundation projects - a table could help mitigate this some what
but if is a valid concern.
I am having a hard time coming up with a new name. Our initial enthusiasm
with a poll missed on the discussion we could put behind each name.
One Idea I am trying to make work (it does not work) is "Dev" (not
development - but like our dev and devel
<https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo> email lists ...). It has a bit
too much of an RnD flavour - when applied to JTS, or PgRouting the
resulting technology does not sound finished. It does however reflect the
open source and community (that is the people side) of the technology -
there is a clear distinction between foundations project and dev. So it is
close - but much like "builder" it sounds incomplete and not fully
acknowledged as being part of the foundation.
--
Jody Garnett
On 8 March 2016 at 12:30, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20160309/81aa7db3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list