Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake up call for me [1]):
- review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project - update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this should not come at the cost of software quality) Looking at Apache's project list [2] as an example tells me there is an opportunity to grow. ..Tom [1] https://twitter.com/howardbutler/status/569577495688663040 [2] http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html > >[Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure >Jody Garnett jody.garnett at gmail.com >Mon Feb 16 11:50:47 PST 2015 > > Previous message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure > Next message: [Incubator] [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > >I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is >very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating >from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements. > >I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating >a with the incubation committee. The MetaCRS projects may not be able to >demonstrate commercial viability using a range of contributing >organizations (our example in the checklist) but should be able to point >out the wide use downstream (so if PROJ goes under it is likely that the >work will in-fact continue). >-- >Jody > >-- >Jody Garnett > >On 16 February 2015 at 05:47, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com> >wrote: > >> On 2/16/2015 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to dig a bit more into the topic "more fine incubation" >>> procedure and former "OSGeo Labs" (now it has no name is slowly >>> forgotten in past, but you can find more at >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs) >>> >>> I would like to start talk about it a bit (I suggest incubator mailing >>> list), prepared wiki page (with confusing name): >>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/5-star-rating >>> >>> Scope: to re-new OSGeo Labs, make the incubation process easier for all >>> of us, with more little steps (except for one big). Projects could flow >>> between the steps "up" and "down", related to their current living phase. >>> >>> I hope, this would help to the community to get oriented, would allow >>> more projects to join in. Work for incubation committee and mentors >>> could be even less (some projects will remain in beta). It's also >>> related to the "certification" topic (even not people, but software). >>> >>> Jachym >>> >> >> This makes a lot of sense to me. I am involved with a lot of smaller >> projects that are valuable but unlikely to be able to stand on their own >> because the community is weak. >> >> pagc (geocoding) - this is all but dead as a project but out of it came a >> core piece of technology the has been moved into postGIS Geocoder >> >> pgRouting - driving directions and vehicle routing problems, we have >> contributed 8+ GSoC mentors to OSGeo over the past years, but it has been >> hard to get funding and volunteers to support ongoing development and >> project releases. We have looked at incubation, but we do not have a strong >> enough community to be able to graduate. >> >> It would be good to have a way to foster projects like this and to look >> for opportunities to merge smaller projects into larger ones that where >> their might be a good fit. I think that we need to better recognize that >> there will be projects that might not be able to stand on their own but >> that they may also be fertile ground for development of good technology and >> that mentoring and redirecting these projects could be a good way to >> harvest this. >> >> Anyway, something to think about ... >> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss