Cameron,
AFAIK the objective of incubation is *NOT* to rate the maturity of
projects: it is to verify that they have an open and active users and
developers community, open and documented decision and development
processes, that the source code is free from IP issues, and that as such
the project seems viable and OSGeo is ready to stand behind it. That's
the way incubation works today and I don't think we can go beyond that
without hurting some people and eventually fragmenting our community.
Of course it is easier for more mature projects to pass all those tests,
but graduating incubation is not a software (source code) maturity
indicator.
Nowhere in the incubation process do we evaluate the quality,
robustness, performance, user-friendlyness, usability, etc. of the
software... so I repeat it: a star rating based solely on incubation
status would mislead the users and could have some ill side-effects.
Daniel
Cameron Shorter wrote:
Jason,
I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of
thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing
OSGeo graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in
the OSGeo community.
I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points
which should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until
that happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for
projects going into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for
projects completing graduation (assigned 4 stars).
Bruce Bannerman wrote:
Jason / Cameron,
>From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:
I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation
could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors
described by Andrea.
This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.
Comments?
Bruce
Daniel Morissette wrote:
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
management and long term viability than an indication of software
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant
rating and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4
stars (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others
with 2 or 3 which is not necessarily the case.
If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or
not then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do
when we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then
it will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
of software against them will be quite a task.
In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on
our communities.
Daniel
Cameron Shorter wrote:
On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think
the potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there
is a very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained
from such ratings.
1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential
for conflict.
--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
