[Incubator] Info on the Old OSGeo Labs
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 16:06:25 PDT 2016
Resend as previous email was blocked by mail server due to message size.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Bruce Bannerman <
bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the concept of extending the communications to other projects, but
> perhaps not until we have our thoughts as to what we are trying to do
> sorted out.
> We may also want to get the thoughts of those already in incubation. I can
> feel the pain and frustration of projects such as Rasdaman that have been
> working through our process for over five years now (though the latest
> delays are largely my fault).
> Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way and need to look at an OSGeo
> Project Maturity model as Cameron has suggested in the past?
> We really are looking at a continuum  of open source project maturity.
> This will allow us to also support Bob's idea of staged incubation, rather
> than one big bang as is currently required.
> It will also allow us to influence projects early on with 'the OSGeo way'
>  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/continuum
>  http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/principles.html
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>> Excellent discussion Bruce, thank you. I agree with the general feel
>> here, that we are on a scale of "Community" (minimal) to "Project"
>> (showcase best practice).
>> The miss assumption is "starting out" or "immature" - projects like
>> pgRouting, GeoWebCache, proj4js are simply "small". We would like an
>> opportunity as a foundation to support these projects and include them in
>> our organization.
>> The downside to Hatch and Nurture is that they assume that a project will
>> proceed towards graduation. While we may be able to capture this as a
>> "staged" incubation process (as per Bob's suggestion) it also suffers from
>> this perspective that the projects are "not ready yet".
>> I wonder if we could take this conversation in the other direction,
>> contact projects like pgRouting and asking what would appeal (rather than
>> guessing at this end what would be attractive).
>> * As a uDig lead I was dissuaded from joining OSGeo by being unable to
>> meet the various incubation viability requirements (the project was too
>> * In prior conversations with Kevin Smith from GeoWebCache there is
>> simply not a business driver to moving from labs to incubation - the
>> project is not attracting enough committers to qualify. Indeed any
>> available time to work on the project is put into the project directly.
>> Jody Garnett
>> On 16 March 2016 at 00:01, Bruce Bannerman <
>> bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>>>> 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:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Incubator