[Live-demo] Alternative to describing maturity with stars?

[Brian Hamlin]

I'm going to write a letter to the Board of Directors of OSGeo
and ask them, for the record
  what is their understanding of how this "rating system" is going
to be differentiated from an official, sanctioned OSGeo rating system
in all present and future materials, including all publicity, online 
and on any LiveDVD

I expect that an answer will have to be completely explored before any 
such
"rating system" is permitted on any OSGeo branded materials...

sorry Cameron, but your unilateral insistence on moving forward with 
this,
despite repeated, thoughtful objections from multiple parties brings 
this on...

signed

Brian Hamlin
planetwork.net
OSGeo California Chapter
(415) 717-4462 cell



On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Hamish wrote:

> Cameron wrote:
> We could specify maturity as a string, of maturity levels, with the 
> current maturity in bold, like:
>
> Maturity: (mature | *established* | stable | beta)
>
>  This still helps users distinguish between projects, without stars.
>  Would that address people's concerns?
>
> Sounds good to me (although I don't really see the need to list the 
> unused words; seems obvious).
>
> I just couldn't see giving a project like GMT with 1000s of spottings 
> in journals like Science and Nature a 2/5 == "stable" star rating and 
> not have someone in the audience saying 'wtf?' ..
>
> what would the difference between "mature" and "established" be? how 
> about vs .stable?
>
>
> Hamish
>
>
> ps- the many fixes from the 4.0rc1 build seemed to have been quiet for 
> a number of days, so time for the next one?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Live-demo mailing list
> Live-demo at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc