[OSGeoLive] OSGeoLive would prefer not to be listed as a Community project
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 11:01:39 PST 2018
While I stand by my original statement, I acknowledge the logistical
challenge of categorising OSGeoLive within the new OSGeo site (as
mentioned by Alex), and also respect what Jody is trying to achieve with
defining suitable categorisation.
I also feel that the issue is small enough that we need not waste a
significant amount of time debating it. I.e. I'd suggest we leave
OSGeoLive categorised as a community project for the moment, and hurry
up and prioritise pushing OSGeoLive through incubation. (Any volunteers
interested in stepping up? We need help building a list of our software
list, and confirming that it has an open license - I'm pretty sure this
is the case.
On 23/1/18 11:39 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
> That is correct Alex, because "incubation" references a mentorship
> process that the development team is going through ... it has no
> reflection on the technology (or indeed on the teams progress).
> The website has three categories:
> - listed on the website at all - required to be geospatial, open
> source and accept contributions
> - osgeo community - lists projects that are part of team osgeo, but
> have not completed incubation. required to be geospatial, open source
> and accept contirbutions. We ask for a more in-depth check of the
> source code because we are now associated with the project team.
> - osgeo project - completed the incubation process, so we trust both
> the code and the teams procedures. Team is recognized as an
> independent committee with osgeo budget etc...
> Please review http://osgeo.org/committees/incubation for a better
> explanation, including listing some of the benefits available.
> Jody Garnett
> On 22 January 2018 at 12:40, Alex M <tech_dev at wildintellect.com
> <mailto:tech_dev at wildintellect.com>> wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 12:20 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > Hi Jody,
> > In OSGeo-Live IRC meeting today , Brian made a point that he
> saw an
> > email from you suggesting that OSGeoLive has been listed as an OSGeo
> > Community project. This might just be a misunderstanding.
> > But to be clear, we, the osgeolive project would prefer not to
> be listed.
> > From IRC logs:
> > CameronShorter: +0, I’d prefer not to have community status
> > with OSGeoLive. To me it sets a level of expectation that
> OSGeoLive is
> > less mature than it is, and also suggests that other projects
> with the
> > community badge are as mature as OSGeoLive, which I think is not the
> > right message to push
> > 
> That seems to be the tag, that all other projects who have applied for
> incubation are under. I guess it's less clear on the new site which
> things are applying to become "Projects" and which are not, as some of
> the community projects have not applied for incubation.
> Cameron, where do you suggest OSGeo Live gets listed instead? It was
> added to community because it wasn't listed in either of the
> and therefore isn't shown on the navigation menus, so people may never
> find it...
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Osgeolive