Hi Marco,
You have suggested that the OSGeo Incubation Graduation Checklist has
zero software quality criteria? I respectfully disagree.
It doesn't go down to the detail of "what UI tests exist?" Such criteria
are project specific, and different for each project. You might be
interested to do some research on software quality auditing practices,
such as CMMI [1]. The extensive CMMI auditing practices spend more time
on auditing the software development process than on specifying tests
for quality. This is because there is a very strong correlation between
good development processes and software quality.
If you look more closely at the graduation checklist, you will notice
there are checks for testing practices, and development processes which
have a track record in producing good software.
The Incubation checklist is not perfect, and could potentially be
improved. Addressing project quality is typically not very glamorous and
testing volunteers are almost always greatly appreciated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration
(Warning - reading this doc will be a huge time sink)
Warm regards, Cameron
On 16/05/2016 8:46 AM, Marco Afonso wrote:
Hi Cameron,
An amazing elaborate criteria about project aspects I must say.
I'm also amazed how much criteria was defined to evaluate project's
software quality, which is zero!
What about performance? OS compatibility? Dependencies? usability?
UI/UX? Code tests? problem solving features? deprecated
code/tecnologies? Etc...
I could elaborate a list of dozens of itens that could really measure
what is the fundamental: project's software.
I thought that here at OSGeo you deal with geographic open source
SOFTWARE solutions but now I see that I'm wrong. The content that you
provide tells nothing about software qualities and facts, which are
the ultimate criteria, even more considering for production status!
Sorry to bother... :)
Cheers
Em 15/05/2016 22:57, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shor...@gmail.com
<mailto:cameron.shor...@gmail.com>> escreveu:
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> 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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, Wwww.lisasoft.com
<http://www.lisasoft.com>, F+61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto: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, Wwww.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
