Hi Marco,
You might want to re-read the OSGeo Incubation Checklist [1], which is
quite clear in the definition of a graduated OSGeo project.
(It is option 1 by your definition below).
[1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
On 16/05/2016 3:45 am, Marco Afonso wrote:
Hi all,
Could some answer what is the % of the ponderation weight of software
quality and the % of the ponderation weight of the project
organization in incubation decision?
The first criteria is technologicaly measureable.
The second is not.
Your evaluation method open the following possibilities:
1. Never accept a new project with high quality software but a lower
evaluation of the project comunity.
2. Accept low quality of software with high project comunity.
3. Accept a project with high comunity evaluation but with old or
deprecated software.
So, to me, seems that you are giving too much weight on the social
aspect (hardly measurable) of the project, instead of giving weight to
software quality (technologicaly measurable) which is fundamental to
your criteria of being for production :)
Marco
Em 15/05/2016 17:40, "Ian Turton" <ijtur...@gmail.com
<mailto:ijtur...@gmail.com>> escreveu:
Marco,
I think you have missed the point of my tales, both the projects
that I wrote about are open source (by any definition) but only
the one with an open organisation is thriving.
OSGeo is designed to support open and sustainable development of
geospatial solutions. A benevolent dictatorship is a fragile model
of governance and so can not be acceptable to us as a foundation.
The (perceived) quality of the software is of no importance in
this discussion if the project fails due to a lack of community.
Ian
PS open hub notes geotools has 241 contributors if we are
measuring success in these metrics.
On 15 May 2016 14:40, "Marco Afonso" <mafonso...@gmail.com
<mailto:mafonso...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Anita,
Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality
evaluation AND project organization evaluation.
So you can exclude an open source software with high quality
if their organization evaluation is low.
For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is
only limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :)
Cheers
Em 15/05/2016 13:14, "Anita Graser" <anitagra...@gmx.at
<mailto:anitagra...@gmx.at>> escreveu:
Hi Marco,
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Marco Afonso
<mafonso...@gmail.com <mailto:mafonso...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Once the software (as an object) is available on a
public repository, it only matters it's license terms
to evaluate it's restrictions. From there, it is
irrelevant "whos behind it".
Here I have to strongly disagree. Imho, the job of OSGeo
incubation is to evaluate a software project (software and
organisation) therefore it makes no sense to limit
discussions to software quality.
Best wishes,
Anita
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
