[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 10:15:35 PST 2016
We are mixing those up slightly - Landon asked me to take a crack at it -
we are adding
* "The project is participatory supporting external contributions (see
CONTIRBUTING for detaisl),"
And we are removing the last requirement:
* "The project hopes to become a graduated OSGeo project" we are striking
from the list.
This acknowledges that some projects may never be in position to meet our
larger sustainability, documentation, governance, quality goals required to
be an OSGeo project. (I still think projects are being to timid about
incubation - many projects could point to widespread use and history of
releases to point to wards sustainability).
--
Jody Garnett
On 9 March 2016 at 10:09, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/af54075c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list