[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
Bruce Bannerman
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Tue Mar 15 21:53:29 PDT 2016
Hi Jody,
Perhaps:
OSGeo Hatch or
OSGeo Nurture
or something similar.
Where emerging projects can develop within a caring family environment.
Now, what support could we provide?
Bruce
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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/20160316/df56248c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list