[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs

Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 10:08:00 PST 2016


I agree bob, the problem is that our projects are putting off the most
important requirement until the end.

Being "open source" is the starting point - and something that our projects
have had a hard time committing to.

--
Jody Garnett

On 9 March 2016 at 05:34, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <
bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>>>>> <%2B61%202%209009%205000>>,  W
>>>>>>         www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
>>>>>>         <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099 <%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://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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160309/3453c3c3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Incubator mailing list