[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Bruce Bannerman
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 19:50:50 PDT 2016
Hi Jody,
It isn't only Cameron who feels strongly about the term 'Technology'. I do
as well.
I had sent an email on the 9th Feb, but have now found that it didn't make
it through to the list.
I suggest we look around further for another term and not be constrained by
the three discussed to date.
I have no issues with the gist of what you want to do, just the proposed
name.
My 9 Feb email was:
=====
Hi Jody,
I can see that the use of the Term OSGeo Technology will be confusing in
the market. We need something else, sorry.
People won't see the difference between Project and Technology.
"An OSGeo Project is OSGeo Technology" right?
Conversely, people will assume that all OSGeo Technology 'things' have
passed through the incubation process.
We do not want to dilute the brand further. There is enough confusion after
the LocationTech efforts IMHO.
=====
Regards,
Bruce
From: Incubator <incubator-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Jody
> Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, 12 March 2016 at 03:35
> To: Landon Blake <sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com>
> Cc: Incubator <Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
>
> 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/20160315/b4400f63/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list