I think this is a good idea and I like the transparency. We might want both a verbose and a compact presentation of their progress. For example if you listed all the projects (like: one line for each) it would be nice to be able to rank them or show what their progress is toward completing their acceptance into OSGeo in a compact way. Something like:

[status] [Project name[url]] Short description
...

or in longer form:

[Project name[url]]
[Short description]
[Long description]
[detailed status]

...

where [status] could be stars or equivalent that link to a detailed description of that it means and [detailed status] might be a list of steps required and the status of progress through the steps.

As part of our branding we might want to setup requirements for how these are presented and linked. In this way we some control over our brand and how projects can use it in this process.

-Steve W

On 3/5/2015 3:25 PM, Peter Baumann wrote:
hm, what about replacing the anonymous stars by concrete fulfilments? A project
might earn fulfilments, such as "has PC", "successful code review", etc. All it
would require is to boil down the requirements into a 1-digit number of
sections, each one earning one named "star" then. My main argument for this is
achievement transparency for the reader. Links under the stars might explain the
meaning, or refer to the individual project's mentor assessment on the
particular facet. Again, this would increase transparency IMHO.
my 0.02,
Peter


On 03/05/2015 09:13 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
I think the idea would be that an "Incubated Project" would have meet all the
basic stars. Obviously the steps that get you to be "incubated" are the same
steps that a project have to achieve to get stars. It seems like there are
goals to get you to "incubated" and then goals to get you to "graduated". But
really it is a continuous process of achievement with milestones along the way
that can be easily verified.

Regardless of a name, it seems like having a progressive well defined path
than can be managed under by the same program and that minimizes the effort by
OSGeo staff in the initial steps would be a good thing for everyone involved.
This should not be diluting anyone's efforts as long as it is clear what the
stars means in the way of progress and effort of the projects involved.

-Steve W

On 3/5/2015 2:57 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
I'm not sure I like diluting the "Incubated Project" status by turning
it into a star rating in which incubated and non-incubated projects are
mixed.

Incubated projects have taken steps to review their code and adjust
their way to operate to meet several requirements, and just a set of
stars do not relay that properly to the outside world.

That being said, I have no alternative name to offer for the "OSGeo
Labs" pre-incubation status at the moment, so I'll stay out of the debate.

Daniel


On 2015-03-05 5:52 AM, Bart van den Eijnden wrote:
Or you’re saying you want to address this with the stars system? So 1
star for existing labs projects for instance?

Jody, as chair of the incubation committee, what’s your take on this?

Best regards,
Bart

On 05 Mar 2015, at 11:51, Bart van den Eijnden <bart...@osgis.nl
<mailto:bart...@osgis.nl>> wrote:

I don’t think you can put projects that have gone through incubation
and the projects that still have to incubate at the same level. But
that’s my opinion only.

Best regards,
Bart

On 05 Mar 2015, at 11:18, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Guys,

I think you are trying to find a term for something, I would like to
get rid of. "OSGeo Project" is, what I would like to achieve for both
- today's projects and labs together under one hat.

Or anybody thinks completely different?

Just my $.02
J

čt 5. 3. 2015 v 9:08 odesílatel Suchith Anand
<suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.uk>> napsal:

     Yes, i think "Incubator Projects" is an appropriate name for this.

     Vaclav - Is this ok for you?

     Suchith
     __________________________________________
     From: Bart van den Eijnden [bart...@osgis.nl
     <mailto:bart...@osgis.nl>]
     Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 7:34 AM
     To: Vaclav Petras
     Cc: Suchith Anand; discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
     Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

     I agree Community Projects is a confusing name.

     What about incubator projects? That’s the term that Apache uses.

     http://incubator.apache.org <http://incubator.apache.org/>

     Best regards,
     Bart

     On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:25, Vaclav Petras <wenzesl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com><mailto:w__enzesl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com>>> wrote:



     On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Suchith Anand
     <suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.__uk

<mailto:suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.uk><mailto:Suchith.Anand@__nottingham.ac.uk


     <mailto:suchith.an...@nottingham.ac.uk>>> wrote:
     Thanks Jeff.

     Though we had lots of discussions afterwards and continuing on
     this , we couldnt find any solution till now. So this might be a
     good opportunity  to modify the Incubation's "labs" term, to
     something like "Community Projects" to avoid confusion if that is
     acceptable to Vaclav, Jachym and others. Many thanks.

     Well, I'm not particularly fond of "Community Projects" as a
     name. Even mature FOSS projects are community projects in one way
     or the other. Unfortunately, I don't have other suggestion.

     Vaclav

     Suchith

     __________________________________________
     From: discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.__org

<mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces@__lists.osgeo.org


     <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org>>
     [discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.__org

<mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces@__lists.osgeo.org


     <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org>>] On Behalf Of Jeff
     McKenna [jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com

<mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>__<mailto:jmckenna@__gatewaygeomatics.com


     <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>>]
     Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:26 PM
     To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:discuss@lists.osgeo.org>__>
     Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure

     (we are approaching 2 full years that this "labs" naming has
been an
     issue and discussed[1])

     Today, knowing how ingrained the term 'lab' is in the GeoForAll
     education network, maybe Jachym is correct that it is a good
time to
     modify the Incubation's "labs" term, to something like "Community
     Projects".

     [1]

http://lists.osgeo.org/__pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/2013-__June/000134.html


<http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ica-osgeo-labs/2013-June/000134.html>

     -jeff




     On 2015-03-03 3:42 AM, Suchith Anand wrote:
     > Vaclav,
     >
     > Please accept my sincere apologies as it was my mistake that i
     did not think on this  when we started the ICA-OSGeo Labs
     initiative (so many things were going on at that time!).
     >
     > In universities, we generally use the "Labs" term to refer to
     infrastructure/people/__facilities for a particular subject. For
     example Botany Lab, Robotics Lab etc. And we wanted to make sure
     there is a dedicated Open Source Geospatial Lab in universities
     worldwide  (which includes bringing together people from various
     disciplines, infrastructure (the physical space) and facilities
     to make this happen. Also it is easier to make use of the same
     terminology/structure of "Labs" which is widely used in the
     university environment to get academics start the initiative in
     their respective universities (also it is easier for them to
     convince their higher management on a structure that is known to
     them than reinvent a new term for this) .
     >
     > So it will very helpful for us if you can make use of new
     "OSGeo-projects" and metioned star (or similar) rating system for
     the incubation as then there is no confusion in the future. Many
     thanks for your consideration.
     >
     > Best wishes,
     >
     > Suchith
     >
     > __________________________________________
     > From: discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.__org

<mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces@__lists.osgeo.org


     <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org>>
     [discuss-bounces@lists.osgeo.__org

<mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org><mailto:discuss-bounces@__lists.osgeo.org


     <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org>>] On Behalf Of Jachym
     Cepicky [jachym.cepi...@gmail.com

<mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com><__mailto:jachym.cepicky@gmail.__com
     <mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com>>]
     > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:27 AM
     > To: Vaclav Petras
     > Cc: OSGeo Discussions; incuba...@lists.osgeo.org

<mailto:incuba...@lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:incubator@lists.osgeo.__org
     <mailto:incuba...@lists.osgeo.org>>
     > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New incubation procedure
     >
     > Vašku,
     >
     > just side note: yes, whith the new "Labs" initiative
     "OSGeo-Labs" have to change their name.
     >
     > My idea would rather be to get rid of current OSGeo- "labs" and
     "projects" and start with new "OSGeo-projects" and metioned star
     (or similar) rating system.
     >
     > Than for current OSGeo-Labs "OSGeo-project level 1" would make
     it (or similar)
     >
     > Jachym
     >
     > po 2. 3. 2015 v 18:33 odesílatel Vaclav Petras
     <wenzesl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com><mailto:w__enzesl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com>><mailto:we__nzesl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com><mailto:wenz__esl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:wenzesl...@gmail.com>>>> napsal:
     >
     > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jachym Cepicky
     <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com

<mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com><__mailto:jachym.cepicky@gmail.__com

<mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com>><mailto:jachym.cepicky@__gmail.com
     <mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com><mailto:jachym.__cepi...@gmail.com
     <mailto:jachym.cepi...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
     > 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
     <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Labs>)
     >
     > Hi Jachym,
     >
     > do you think that with the renewal you can replace the name
     "OSGeo Labs" by something else? Now we have also ISPRS-ICA-OSGeo
     Research and Educational laboratories which might be often
     shortened to OSGeo Labs, although I prefer OSGeoRELs for writing.
     The mainling list is ica-osgeo-labs. Put perhaps it is not such
     an issue since the term "Geo for All" (http://www.geoforall.org/)
     is now used more and more (well, the linked website as OSGeo Labs
     in the title element).
     >
     > Thanks for taking this into consideration,
     > Vaclav
     >
     >
     _________________________________________________
     Discuss mailing list
     Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>__>
     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>



     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the
addressee
     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
     message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately
     delete it.

     Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in
this
     message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed
by the
     author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
     University of Nottingham.

     This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
     attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage
your
     computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
     communications with the University of Nottingham may be
monitored as
     permitted by UK legislation.

     _________________________________________________
     Discuss mailing list
     Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>__>
     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>

     _________________________________________________
     Discuss mailing list
     Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org><__mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
     <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>__>
     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>




     This message and any attachment are intended solely for the
addressee
     and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
     message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately
     delete it.

     Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in
this
     message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed
by the
     author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
     University of Nottingham.

     This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
     attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage
your
     computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
     communications with the University of Nottingham may be
monitored as
     permitted by UK legislation.

     _________________________________________________
     Discuss mailing list
     Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org>
     http://lists.osgeo.org/__mailman/listinfo/discuss
     <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>





_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to