We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'. It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change to rules.
>From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while subjective in some cases is still valid and effective in guiding a project to the ideals that we as a community aspire to. When a project graduates from incubation, it gains considerable credibility as a viable open source spatial project. It is a badge of honour for the project and something to aspire too. So why are we trying to dilute this? While there are aspects that could improve, what is the rationale for wanting to change the process (together with the inevitable disruption that follows)? If we are serious about changing the incubation rules, then a more formal methodology such as those referred to by Cameron at [1] may be more appropriate. Now, who has the spare time to investigate and drive this forward, **if we deem it appropriate**.....? Are there any volunteers? Bruce [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2015-March/002644.html =============== I recently came across a number of "Open Source Maturity Methodologies", which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss