[OSGeoLive] OSGeoLive would prefer not to be listed as a Community project

[Cameron Shorter]

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.

Cameron


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 [1], 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
>     associated
>     > 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
>     >
>     > [1]
>     http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeolive/%23osgeolive.2018-01-22.log
>     <http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeolive/%23osgeolive.2018-01-22.log>
>     >
>
>     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
>     categories
>     and therefore isn't shown on the navigation menus, so people may never
>     find it...
>
>     Thanks,
>     Alex
>
>

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20180124/14bc0237/attachment.html>