[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs

[Bruce Bannerman]

Perhaps this is where we need to start.

>
> What is it that we're trying to establish, together with the rationale. We
> can sort a name from there, rather than assuming that everyone is familiar
> with what the old 'Labs' were intended for.
>
> In response to your question:
>
> Assumption by me:  The 'thing' is intended to support projects and their
> communities that are small, immature, or just starting out. These projects
> are not ready to begin graduation, or perhaps do not want to go through the
> process at this stage.
>
> Therefore, we want to find a way to encourage them into the OSGeo
> Community, Principles and way of working. Projects may or may not wish to
> enter graduation as they evolve.
>
> Therefore, I saw that we could have a nurturing role for these projects,
> to provide them with basic infrastructure for web presence, project
> governance and code repositories. If projects express an interest we could
> introduce them to some of the concepts required of an OSGeo Project in
> graduation. This is heading in the direction that Bob Basques suggested for
> staged graduation.
>
> I see this as potentially a nuturing role, hence the two terms:
>
> OSGeo Hatch (as in hatchery for new projects)
>
> OSGeo Nurture.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>
> If my assumption as to the intent of this 'thing' is incorrect, then
> perhaps we could clarify as a starting point.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is just it, trying for projects that are not emerging - so we do not
>> want to give the impression that their technology ish immature (even if we
>> think the foundation can offer further help in other areas).
>>
>> Bruce cash you preview some reasoning behind your two suggestions? I do
>> not want to just be negative ...
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM Bruce Bannerman <
>> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>


</snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20160316/f7e7f665/attachment.html>