[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Stephen Woodbridge
woodbri at swoodbridge.com
Fri Mar 11 10:52:43 PST 2016
I think think Community would meet our needs. +1 for that.
-Steve
On 3/11/2016 1:35 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>cameron.shorter at gmail.com
> <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> <mailto: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>>
>
> <mailto: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>>
>
> <mailto: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>
>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, W
> www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>
> <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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>, Wwww.lisasoft.com
> <http://Wwww.lisasoft.com>
> <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F +61 2 9009 5099
> <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>
> --
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> 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
More information about the Incubator
mailing list