[Incubator] Motion: Old "OSGeo Labs" be renamed as "OSGeo Community Projects"

Arnulf Christl arnulf.christl at metaspatial.net
Fri Mar 18 10:37:10 PDT 2016


+1 Arnulf

On 18.03.2016 07:45, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> I think we have reached a rough consensus on this thread. I suggest we
> vote, hopefully all agree, and move forward.
> 
> Motion: The old "OSGeo Labs" should be renamed to "OSGeo Community
> Projects".
> 
> +1 Cameron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/03/2016 10:06 am, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>> Resend as previous email was blocked by mail server due to message size.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Bruce Bannerman
>> <<mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Jody,
>>
>>     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 [1] 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' [2].
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>>     [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/continuum
>>
>>     [2] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/principles.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Jody Garnett
>>     <<mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         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 small).
>>
>>         * 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
>>         <<mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>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.
>>
>>             Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jody Garnett
>>             <<mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>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
>>                 <<mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>
>>                 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

-- 
http://metaspatial.net
Spatially enabling your business.


More information about the Incubator mailing list