There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal
for a 5 star rating.
Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the
target audience?
Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.
We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.
Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source
packages are available to replace their existing XXXX, but usually
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at
conferences.
So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?
On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have
not step up to the plate for providing such materials -- for a variety
of reasons, some good and some not so good.
OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section,
and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good
-- if not, then so be it.
I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more
than that is likely not worth the effort required. Our users are, for
the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch. And for apps
that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source
types, it should be up to them to provide the "marketing" materials
they deem appropriate.
-mpg
*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques
*Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
*To:* OSGeo Discussions
*Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
All,
Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance? :c)
That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort
of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate
a standardized look and feel to such things.
bobb
>>> Howard Butler <hobu....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:
> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to
compare them?
/me screams into a room that no one can hear. Stop it!
This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing
to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those
"users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by
having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way. OSGeo is
doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to
them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the
quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community. A
silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in
any way.
It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type
material from each project who wishes to participate to make their
case to the envisioned users of this rating. Projects who do not
participate in this for whatever reason implicitly make a statement
about their quality. That's going to be far more useful to both the
projects and the users than an elongating graphic.
Howard_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss