[VisCom] Re: [Incubator] Review Of MapBuilder incubation artifacts

[Michael P. Gerlek]

On the logo front, PushDesign has started the work.  We are proceeding
in stages; in ~3 weeks we should have the refined logo in all the myriad
formats; following that, in the subsequent weeks, we will be rolling out
presentation templates, formal branding guide, business card template,
etc, ad inf.

-mpg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Walsh [mailto:jo at frot.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:57 AM
> To: incubator at incubator.osgeo.org
> Cc: dev at webcommittee.osgeo.org; dev at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
> Subject: [VisCom] Re: [Incubator] Review Of MapBuilder 
> incubation artifacts
> 
> dear Jody, all, (apologies for the cc list spam :( )
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:19:41AM -0700, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > - project documents, what are we looking for here indeed. I 
> am looking for
> > a) link to OSGeo
> > b) correct use of OSGeo logo
> > c) OSGeo contact information on official docs such as pdf 
> installation 
> > instructions etc
> > d) correct use of fonts and branding on official documents
> > e) since the viscomm / webcomm have not facilitated this I 
> would like to 
> >1 see mapbuilder have a plan for documentation / website upgrade
> 
> What is needed here? 
> - Description of logo usage guidelines - what is "correct"?
>   How close are people collectively between VisCom and WebCom members
>   to getting this ironed out?
> - Styling / layout guidelines/dictionary. I think Mpg has been
>   organising in the scope of VisCom a new professionally produced
>   set of logo artwork for multiuse, I dont know how much the scope of
>   their budget also applies to things like CSS styling, drafts of
>   layouts, maybe not at all.
>   There is a small proposed budget for design work also in the
>   infrastructure migration plan. This is imaginary right now.
> 
> > already available for example, it would be also be wise to have a 
> > feature matrix. While the web and vis committees have not 
> figured out 
> > what the exact requirement is I can not hold MapBuilder 
> responsible for 
> > its lack.
> 
> From this old page I see "feature matrix comparison" vaguely within
> VisCom's remit. While this is the sort of thing that
> visibility-oriented people should be facilitating I think the
> responsiblity for putting that together really is more with the
> projects. I bet some people already have feature matrices in their
> documentation that a more complete matrix can be extrapolated from. 
> I suppose people would want to fill in a spreadsheet, or something. 
> 
> It's the sort of thing Jason might want to work on, or might not. It's
> the sort of thing Chris might want to help with, or might not. 
> Committees are fine when you view them as Parties, collections of
> people who have more or less common and intersecting interests. But
> asking or expecting a *Committee* to do something is like asking a car
> to drive itself. Someone has to do the work and you have to be able to
> connect to them to get what you want out of them, that's about it. 
> You make more effort when motivated by personal interest and the
> Foundation is about interconnecting personal interests into something
> exponentially more interesting. Is the committee structure really
> facilitating that or is it just balkanising concerns?
> 
> > Why this feedback and why now?
> > 
> > My thinking is this, when the process grows we will need to 
> ensure the 
> > incubation committee provides information to the next people in the 
> > chain. We need to make sure that a graduating project 
> actually is ready 
> > for graduation with all the materials available needed by 
> other OSGeo 
> > committees.  I understand that some of this is hard due to visual 
> > standards not being defined yet, setting up an adoption plan or a 
> > responsible memeber of the MapBuilder commity will need to 
> prove sufficient.
> 
> Having seen the lack set out so clearly, perhaps those people equipped
> or enabled to fill in the missing pieces could chip in in the 
> nearish f.
> It would make a lot of difference for PR backup if, when a couple more
> projects spring out of the OSGeo incubator, there's a good visual
> consistency and range of supporting docs available for the projects,
> something that provides a template for new projects coming in.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> jo
>   
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> dev-help at visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
> 
>