Boob, You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ?
Regards, Y. Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit : > All, > > Instead of a 5 star rating, what about using a small standardized chart of > some sort. 5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification). One > of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example. > > Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from > the conversation too): > > * Incubation status > * Age of project > * Number of commiters > * Language(s) (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc) > * OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc) > * Mobile Version (Yes/No) > * etc. . . . > > Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could > be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project. Additionally the > standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so > that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized > (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing. > > Just thinking out loud here. > > bobb > > >>> Daniel Morissette <dmorisse...@mapgears.com> 06/06/10 7:21 PM >>> > > 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. -- Yves Jacolin http://yjacolin.gloobe.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss