Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it in various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:
- those which are "Approved by OSGeo" - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval" - everything else With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; I don't think much explanation should be required up front, especially if one avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation". -mpg From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating 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
