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

Fri Mar 18 11:04:08 PDT 2016

+0 Steve

From: Incubator [mailto:incubator-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:45 AM
To: incubator at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion: Old "OSGeo Labs" be renamed as "OSGeo Community Projects"

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 <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com<mailto: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 <jody.garnett at gmail.com<mailto: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 <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com<mailto: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 <jody.garnett at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:

_______________________________________________

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,  W www.lisasoft.com<http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F +61 2 9009 5099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20160318/c140cc38/attachment-0001.html>