[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Landon Blake
sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 09:53:43 PST 2016
+1 from me on this idea from Bob also. :]
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:34 AM, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160311/5d76ec1e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list