[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Jody Garnett
jody.garnett at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 20:10:38 PDT 2016
That is fine I respect both you and Cameron - and naming *anything* is
tough. If I can ask everyone to keep thinking on this one - we are
searching for inspiration here (so more names does not always help, more
names backed by discussion on what each means does help).
--
Jody Garnett
On 14 March 2016 at 19:50, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160314/1eaa257b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list