Returning to this email thread: 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella > 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella > 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation
I am happy with either wiki or IRC meeting to work through these topics. 4 - 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 last topic is a subject for the projects mailing list (I think we would need feedback from existing project officers). I note we have a procedure for retiring a project, individual projects may also have language returning control of a project to the OSGeo board (in the even the PSC cannot make quorum). Reference: * http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html#dissolution-of-psc * http://www.osgeo.org/faq -- Jody Garnett On 12 March 2015 at 00:26, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bruce, > > your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather > thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then > just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now > does not work (ergo should be fixed)? > > I'm speaking from my perspective (PyWPS developer, which probably never > makes it to incubation as it is defined now, and Board member). I want > PyWPS to be "somehow" part of OSGeo (and I believe, there are more projects > like that, to them is the incubation just too high step). I'm adding Jody's > point to issue list, I'm proposing (but it's based on previous discussions): > > 1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella > 2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella > 3 - attract more volunteers to incubation > 4 - 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? > > Bruce: what would be your proposal to approach, in the therm of "clearing > rationale as to what is broken"? Mailing list? IRC meeting? F2F meeting > (are you both at FOSS4GNA?)? > > Thanks > > Jachym > > čt 12. 3. 2015 v 1:17 odesílatel Bruce Bannerman < > bruce.bannerman.os...@gmail.com> napsal: > > Hi Jody, >> >> The work keeps falling back on the same people… >> >> We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re >> trying to fix. >> >> I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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