If we could add to your list: 4. Attract more volunteers to incubation
-- Jody Garnett On 11 March 2015 at 06:05, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Whatever, > > I would like to achieve: > > 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella > 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella > 3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do > not believe in "and lived happily ever after" - to become the project, > certain level (checklist) has to be reached. But what if the project looses > it's community? > > The "still-callled-star" system I started to work on, was inspired by > Cameron notes (just FYI) > > J > > st 11. 3. 2015 v 1:12 odesÃlatel Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> > napsal: > > I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this. >> >> I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is >> producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is >> an embarrassing bottleneck). >> >> Rather than a "star" system I think we can highlight how far along in the >> checklist each project is. >> >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> On 10 March 2015 at 16:12, Bruce Bannerman < >> bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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