[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 10:35:41 PST 2016
We have a strong negative reaction from Cameron for "Technology", and a
strong negative reaction from me for "Builder". That leaves "Community" -
it does meet our need of being inclusive and welcoming projects into OSGeo.
--
Jody Garnett
On 11 March 2016 at 09:52, Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I know there are some people that don't like the "Technology" name, but we
> did hold a vote of committee members. I'll remind everyone that these three
> names were tied for the top choice:
>
> "Community Project", "Builder Project" and "Technology Project".
>
> I think we should stick with one of these top 3 and not reopen this debate
> on the name. If we keep doing that, we won't make forward progress. If we
> need to hold a quick e-mail vote to pick between the 3 names that tied for
> top choice, then lets do that.
>
> Landon
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160311/0f88c94c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list