[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Even Rouault
even.rouault at spatialys.com
Wed Mar 9 10:09:28 PST 2016
Le mercredi 09 mars 2016 18:50:30, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> It certainly can - the emphasis (or moto) is on "open source and
> participatory". If it is a single persons development effort provenance
> would be easier to check, participatory would be harder (perhaps has if the
> github CONTIRBUTING.md file was available to direct incoming
> pull-requests).
>
> Identifying minimal requires are difficult - because as an organization we
> *believe* in all the requirements laid out for incubation. It is always
> tempting to add "one more important one".
The requirements mentionned at
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Incubation_Technology_Projects looks good to
me:
"""
The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects need to
specify their choice for a type of license).
The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
The project is "geospatial", or directly supports geospatial applications.
The project hopes to become a graduated OSGeo project,.
"""
Wondering if the last one makes sense though. It cannot be objectively verified
and I guess there are projects that would make sense as OSGeo Technology or
whatever-it-is-named but can't/don't want/aren't sure to want to go to
incubation & graduation.
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 8 March 2016 at 15:09, Massimiliano Cannata <
>
> 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> 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
--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
More information about the Incubator
mailing list