Hi Jachym,
I won’t be attending FOSS4GNA.
I suggest that if we are going down this track that we have and open process
that allows all interested to provide **constructive criticism** on what people
believe is broken.
Perhaps this could be done via the wiki.
We will then require a process to review the comments and respond
appropriately. I suggest perhaps a weighting be added to comments from people
who have practical experiences with the Incubation process.
This would perhaps provided the basis for determining how to move forward.
I will not have the time available to participate in this exercise, apart from
perhaps in a review role.
I personally believe that the onus for this work should reside with those who
believe that the current process is broken. I’m not one of these.
Bruce
On 12 Mar 2015, at 6:26 pm, 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
