Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Jody Garnett]

Your comments on specific logos for specific items is good; and amounts to a 
very light feature comparison.

GeoTools ran into the limits of our own 5 star system; we ended up needing a 
different set of "stars" depending on the the kind of module being described. 
The "limit" was when we entered the incubation process and needed to verify 
that a module had passed its IP check. This introduced a strict pass/fail into 
what was formally a reflection of quality.
- http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOT/Gold+Star+Quality+Assurance+Check

> (Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
> means...)

Nothing ... the incubation process is there to help projects. It is graduation 
that says something about a project (and mostly about a projects organisation).

Jody

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

Dave,
I'm hoping most projects are represented on this discuss list.

However, I'll also be contacting all our OSGeo Live project contact 
people in the next couple of days as we kick off the OSGeo Live build 
process. I'll make sure that each project can comment on the "Project 
Overview" which includes the project rating criteria.


On 11/06/10 06:52, Dave McIlhagga wrote:
One suggestion - since there is a lot of concern about the idea of 
"rating" projects, maybe the PSCs of each of the projects should be 
consulted before going ahead with this? After all -- it's for each of 
these projects' benefits that this is being considered, and if the 
various PSC consensus is this is not a good idea .. it should probably 
carry a lot of weight.


Dave

Dave McIlhagga
www.mapsherpa.com 
www.dmsolutions.ca 

On 2010-06-10, at 4:44 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:


On 11/06/10 01:59, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

(Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
means...)


"Ready to start incubation" implies that projects that have applied 
for, or are mature enough to apply, can be ranked at the same level 
as projects in incubation.


I propose we use OSGeo's criteria for selecting incubation candidates 
here:

http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html

(At some point we should revisit OSGeo's checklists, but lets leave 
that for another email thread and for the moment we use what we have).



--
Cameron Shorter
 



Criteria

   1. The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects
  need to specify their choice for a type of license).
   2. The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
   3. The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of
  geospatial applications.


Desirable

The following are desirable traits of projects entering into the 
community:


   1. Open source software is already reasonably mature (working
  quality code).
   2. Project already has a substantial user community.
   3. Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
   4. Project members are aware of, and implements support for,
  relevant standards (ie. OGC, etc).
   5. Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
   6. Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation
  supports.
   7. Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative
  fashion.
   8. Project has contributions and interest from more than just one
  company/organization.
   9. Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure
  (code repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to
  foundation support infrastructure, and to adopt a website style
  consistent with the foundation.

Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com
 
___

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
   



--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Dave McIlhagga]

One suggestion - since there is a lot of concern about the idea of "rating" 
projects, maybe the PSCs of each of the projects should be consulted before 
going ahead with this? After all -- it's for each of these projects' benefits 
that this is being considered, and if the various PSC consensus is this is not 
a good idea .. it should probably carry a lot of weight.

Dave

Dave McIlhagga
www.mapsherpa.com
www.dmsolutions.ca

On 2010-06-10, at 4:44 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> On 11/06/10 01:59, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>> 
>> (Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
>> means...)
> 
> "Ready to start incubation" implies that projects that have applied for, or 
> are mature enough to apply, can be ranked at the same level as projects in 
> incubation.
> 
> I propose we use OSGeo's criteria for selecting incubation candidates here:
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html
> 
> (At some point we should revisit OSGeo's checklists, but lets leave that for 
> another email thread and for the moment we use what we have).
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Criteria
> 
> The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects need to 
> specify their choice for a type of license).
> The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
> The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial 
> applications.
> Desirable
> 
> The following are desirable traits of projects entering into the community:
> 
> Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality code).
> Project already has a substantial user community.
> Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
> Project members are aware of, and implements support for, relevant standards 
> (ie. OGC, etc).
> Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
> Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.
> Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion.
> Project has contributions and interest from more than just one 
> company/organization.
> Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure (code 
> repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation support 
> infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent with the foundation.
> Geospatial Director
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
> 
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
> ___
> 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

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

> that projects that have applied for

Good...

> or are mature enough to apply

...But does "mature enough" mean Criteria 1-3 are met, or that some of the 
Desirables are met too, or..?

-mpg


From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:45 PM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

On 11/06/10 01:59, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

(Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
means...)

"Ready to start incubation" implies that projects that have applied for, or are 
mature enough to apply, can be ranked at the same level as projects in 
incubation.

I propose we use OSGeo's criteria for selecting incubation candidates here:
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html

(At some point we should revisit OSGeo's checklists, but lets leave that for 
another email thread and for the moment we use what we have).




--

Cameron Shorter

Criteria

 1.  The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects need to 
specify their choice for a type of license).
 2.  The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
 3.  The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial 
applications.

Desirable
The following are desirable traits of projects entering into the community:

 1.  Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality code).
 2.  Project already has a substantial user community.
 3.  Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
 4.  Project members are aware of, and implements support for, relevant 
standards (ie. OGC, etc).
 5.  Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
 6.  Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.
 7.  Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion.
 8.  Project has contributions and interest from more than just one 
company/organization.
 9.  Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure (code 
repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation support 
infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent with the foundation.

Geospatial Director

Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050

Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254



Think Globally, Fix Locally

Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source

http://www.lisasoft.com
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

On 11/06/10 01:59, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

(Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
means...)


"Ready to start incubation" implies that projects that have applied for, 
or are mature enough to apply, can be ranked at the same level as 
projects in incubation.


I propose we use OSGeo's criteria for selecting incubation candidates here:
http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html

(At some point we should revisit OSGeo's checklists, but lets leave that 
for another email thread and for the moment we use what we have).



--
Cameron Shorter


   Criteria

  1. The code is under an OSI approved license (data & doc projects
 need to specify their choice for a type of license).
  2. The project is willing to keep code clear of encumbrances
  3. The project is "geospatial", or directly in support of geospatial
 applications.


   Desirable

The following are desirable traits of projects entering into the community:

  1. Open source software is already reasonably mature (working quality
 code).
  2. Project already has a substantial user community.
  3. Project already has a substantial and diverse developer community.
  4. Project members are aware of, and implements support for, relevant
 standards (ie. OGC, etc).
  5. Project has linkages with existing foundation projects.
  6. Project fills a gap related to software that the foundation supports.
  7. Project is prepared to develop in an open and collaborative fashion.
  8. Project has contributions and interest from more than just one
 company/organization.
  9. Project is willing to migrate some or all of its infrastructure
 (code repository, web site, wiki, mailing list, etc) to foundation
 support infrastructure, and to adopt a website style consistent
 with the foundation.

Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

I'd suggest that a set of N icons/logos accompanied by the words "mature" / 
"beta" / etc would be better than stars, as it directly indicates to the 
customer what we're using as a metric.

Fixed, well-defined categories like this are good, because we do not want to 
get into subjective arguments over whether app A is "better" than app B.

(Along those lines, I'd also ask precisely what "ready to start" incubation 
means...)

-mpg


> -Original Message-
> From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:12 AM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
> 
> Dave,
> So maybe we should have 1-5 stars (or osgeo logos) which is quickly
> visually understood by our target audience, and that is followed by a
> word or two describing each star rating.
> 
> 5 logos (not used yet)
> 4 logos (very mature - passed osgeo incubation)
> 3 logos (mature - started or ready to start osgeo incubation process)
> 2 logos (stable - puts our stable, tested releases which are used in
> production)
> 1 logo (beta software)
> 
> Dave Patton wrote:
> > On 2010/06/04 1:49 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> >> For the OSGeo LiveDVD and OSGeo marketing material, I propose we use
> >> a 5 star maturity rating. This is because it is too difficult to
> >> explain in a couple of words, the difference between: "Graduated",
> >> "In Incubation", "Stable", "Beta" Again, I'm interested to hear
> >> comments on whether I have defined a good rating system, before we
> >> set it in stone.
> >
> > Don't use any "rating system", as that implies to most people
> > some (usually subjective) judgment. For example, people looking
> > at marketing materials might think it reflects on "product quality".
> > It sounds to me like you want to define a simple "categorization
> > system", not a "rating system".
> >
> > Don't use "stars", because again, it's too often used as a visual
> > indicator in "rating systems".
> >
> > I'm still not convinced in my own mind that doing something as
> > simple as calling it a "Maturity Categorization", and using
> > from 1 to 5 OSGeo Logos vs using "stars" would provide a
> > solution that would be acceptable.
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Solutions Manager
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
> 
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
> http://www.lisasoft.com
> 
> ___
> 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

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

> Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper

(Great, what more could anyone hope for?)

Anyway, I think you might be selling OSGeo short -- our very presence indicates 
an implicit  level of coordination and maturity that people will intuitively 
and implicitly grok.

-mpg


> -Original Message-
> From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:25 PM
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
> 
> Michael,
> Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper
> about what OSGeo stands for and then how we market that. Successful
> product companies first find out what the market wants, the build a
> marketing message, then build the product to fit the market. Developing
> a shiny product then discovering no-one wants it is a sad but common
> story.
> 
> In our case, we have created a brand called "OSGeo Incubation". What
> does that mean? Why is it valuable? How can we get that message across
> to our target market of GIS users who are interested in Open Source but
> don't know what OSGeo is?
> 
> If OSGeo Incubation doesn't represent quality or maturity (which is
> what
> the market are looking for) then what is the point of spending years of
> volunteer time going through incubation?
> 
> I'm afraid that "OSGeo Project" is not a compelling sales message to
> our
> target market, unless we can tie the message to quality or maturity (or
> another word with similar meaning).
> 
> Unless we can provide such positive marketing, I expect that we will
> have spin off projects or organisations "defect" from OSGeo create
> their
> own marketing message. (I wouldn't be surprise if OpenGeo had similar
> thoughts before they created and then marketed the OpenGeo suite.)
> 
> Marketing like everything else has positives and negatives.
> Positives:
> + Lots of users which draws in money and developers and we all make
> money and thrive
> 
> Negatives:
> - We need to distill our messages down into marketing sound bytes and
> generalised rating systems and the like
> 
> - We need to be honest in describing ours and others projects because
> that is what the market wants to hear before they will spend money on
> us
> 
> 
> On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> > Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all
> over it in various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of
> projects:
> >
> >   - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
> >   - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
> >   - everything else
> >
> > With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two
> categories; I don't think much explanation should be required up front,
> especially if one avoids jargon words like "graduated" and
> "incubation".
> >
> > -mpg
> >
> >
> > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-
> boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
> > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
> > To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
> >
> > There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
> >
> > Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the
> proposal for a 5 star rating.
> >
> > Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted
> by OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD,
> we are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How
> do we credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation
> process in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood
> by the target audience?
> >
> > Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is
> meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo
> and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.
> >
> > We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on
> each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-
> estate.
> >
> > Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people
> who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and
> fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS
> users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source
> packages are available to replace their existing , but usually
> haven't he

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

Dave,
So maybe we should have 1-5 stars (or osgeo logos) which is quickly 
visually understood by our target audience, and that is followed by a 
word or two describing each star rating.


5 logos (not used yet)
4 logos (very mature - passed osgeo incubation)
3 logos (mature - started or ready to start osgeo incubation process)
2 logos (stable - puts our stable, tested releases which are used in 
production)

1 logo (beta software)

Dave Patton wrote:

On 2010/06/04 1:49 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

For the OSGeo LiveDVD and OSGeo marketing material, I propose we use
a 5 star maturity rating. This is because it is too difficult to
explain in a couple of words, the difference between: "Graduated",
"In Incubation", "Stable", "Beta" Again, I'm interested to hear
comments on whether I have defined a good rating system, before we
set it in stone.


Don't use any "rating system", as that implies to most people
some (usually subjective) judgment. For example, people looking
at marketing materials might think it reflects on "product quality".
It sounds to me like you want to define a simple "categorization
system", not a "rating system".

Don't use "stars", because again, it's too often used as a visual
indicator in "rating systems".

I'm still not convinced in my own mind that doing something as
simple as calling it a "Maturity Categorization", and using
from 1 to 5 OSGeo Logos vs using "stars" would provide a
solution that would be acceptable.




--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Dave Patton]

On 2010/06/04 1:49 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

For the OSGeo LiveDVD and OSGeo marketing material, I propose we use
a 5 star maturity rating. This is because it is too difficult to
explain in a couple of words, the difference between: "Graduated",
"In Incubation", "Stable", "Beta" Again, I'm interested to hear
comments on whether I have defined a good rating system, before we
set it in stone.


Don't use any "rating system", as that implies to most people
some (usually subjective) judgment. For example, people looking
at marketing materials might think it reflects on "product quality".
It sounds to me like you want to define a simple "categorization
system", not a "rating system".

Don't use "stars", because again, it's too often used as a visual
indicator in "rating systems".

I'm still not convinced in my own mind that doing something as
simple as calling it a "Maturity Categorization", and using
from 1 to 5 OSGeo Logos vs using "stars" would provide a
solution that would be acceptable.

--
Dave Patton
CIS Canadian Information Systems
Victoria, B.C.

Degree Confluence Project:
Canadian Coordinator
Technical Coordinator
http://www.confluence.org/

Personal website:
Maps, GPS, etc.
http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Bruce Bannerman]

On 9/06/10 10:40 AM, "P Kishor"  wrote:

> The last thing that anyone wants is for a major player to implement a poor
> quality application and have problems with the bad publicity that would
> follow.
>
> We cannot expect that knowledgeable OS Spatial people will always be doing
> product selection. This is often a function assigned to an IT group through
> Enterprise IT Governance processes. The people doing the selection, may or
> may not have appropriate skills and experience.

Due diligence, caveat emptor and all. If the people doing selection
don't have appropriate skills and experience, then those people should
be replaced with people who have the appropriate skills and experience
to do the selection. Makes me shudder to think that not only might we
have inexperienced and inappropriate people at the helm, we are
willing to accept them there instead of changing them.



The point that I was making is that Enterprise IT Governance processes often 
remove the product selection from the people specifying the Business 
Requirements. This is often an IT function. Spatial requirements are often seen 
as a Business function.

In an ideal world, organisations would have people with appropriate IT, 
Spatial, OGC and OS Spatial skills making the recommendations.

In the real world, we cannot expect that this will actually happen.


Have you tried recruiting for people with appropriate IT, Spatial, OGC and OS 
Spatial skills lately (and at government wages...)?

Bruce
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[P Kishor]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Bruce Bannerman  wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> Well stated.
>
> As an organisation that is implementing Open Source spatial, we are looking
> to applications that have graduated from OSGeo Incubation as an indication
> of quality.
>
> If this is not the case, as has been indicated in this thread, then IMHO, we
> as OSGeo need to devise an approach that will allow organisations to select
> quality applications for deployment.
>
> The last thing that anyone wants is for a major player to implement a poor
> quality application and have problems with the bad publicity that would
> follow.
>
> We cannot expect that knowledgeable OS Spatial people will always be doing
> product selection. This is often a function assigned to an IT group through
> Enterprise IT Governance processes. The people doing the selection, may or
> may not have appropriate skills and experience.

Due diligence, caveat emptor and all. If the people doing selection
don't have appropriate skills and experience, then those people should
be replaced with people who have the appropriate skills and experience
to do the selection. Makes me shudder to think that not only might we
have inexperienced and inappropriate people at the helm, we are
willing to accept them there instead of changing them.


>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On 9/06/10 8:24 AM, "Cameron Shorter"  wrote:
>
> Michael,
> Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper
> about what OSGeo stands for and then how we market that. Successful
> product companies first find out what the market wants, the build a
> marketing message, then build the product to fit the market. Developing
> a shiny product then discovering no-one wants it is a sad but common story.
>
> In our case, we have created a brand called "OSGeo Incubation". What
> does that mean? Why is it valuable? How can we get that message across
> to our target market of GIS users who are interested in Open Source but
> don't know what OSGeo is?
>
> If OSGeo Incubation doesn't represent quality or maturity (which is what
> the market are looking for) then what is the point of spending years of
> volunteer time going through incubation?
>
> I'm afraid that "OSGeo Project" is not a compelling sales message to our
> target market, unless we can tie the message to quality or maturity (or
> another word with similar meaning).
>
> Unless we can provide such positive marketing, I expect that we will
> have spin off projects or organisations "defect" from OSGeo create their
> own marketing message. (I wouldn't be surprise if OpenGeo had similar
> thoughts before they created and then marketed the OpenGeo suite.)
>
> Marketing like everything else has positives and negatives.
> Positives:
> + Lots of users which draws in money and developers and we all make
> money and thrive
>
> Negatives:
> - We need to distill our messages down into marketing sound bytes and
> generalised rating systems and the like
>
> - We need to be honest in describing ours and others projects because
> that is what the market wants to hear before they will spend money on us
>
>
> On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>> Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over
>> it in various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:
>>
>>   - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
>>   - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
>>   - everything else
>>
>> With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two
>> categories; I don't think much explanation should be required up front,
>> especially if one avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation".
>>
>> -mpg
>>
>>
>> From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
>> [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
>> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>>
>> There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
>>
>> Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal
>> for a 5 star rating.
>>
>> Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by
>> OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are
>> packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit
>> that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our
>> marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the target
>> audience?
>

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Bruce Bannerman]

Cameron,

Well stated.

As an organisation that is implementing Open Source spatial, we are looking to 
applications that have graduated from OSGeo Incubation as an indication of 
quality.

If this is not the case, as has been indicated in this thread, then IMHO, we as 
OSGeo need to devise an approach that will allow organisations to select 
quality applications for deployment.

The last thing that anyone wants is for a major player to implement a poor 
quality application and have problems with the bad publicity that would follow.

We cannot expect that knowledgeable OS Spatial people will always be doing 
product selection. This is often a function assigned to an IT group through 
Enterprise IT Governance processes. The people doing the selection, may or may 
not have appropriate skills and experience.

Bruce




On 9/06/10 8:24 AM, "Cameron Shorter"  wrote:

Michael,
Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper
about what OSGeo stands for and then how we market that. Successful
product companies first find out what the market wants, the build a
marketing message, then build the product to fit the market. Developing
a shiny product then discovering no-one wants it is a sad but common story.

In our case, we have created a brand called "OSGeo Incubation". What
does that mean? Why is it valuable? How can we get that message across
to our target market of GIS users who are interested in Open Source but
don't know what OSGeo is?

If OSGeo Incubation doesn't represent quality or maturity (which is what
the market are looking for) then what is the point of spending years of
volunteer time going through incubation?

I'm afraid that "OSGeo Project" is not a compelling sales message to our
target market, unless we can tie the message to quality or maturity (or
another word with similar meaning).

Unless we can provide such positive marketing, I expect that we will
have spin off projects or organisations "defect" from OSGeo create their
own marketing message. (I wouldn't be surprise if OpenGeo had similar
thoughts before they created and then marketed the OpenGeo suite.)

Marketing like everything else has positives and negatives.
Positives:
+ Lots of users which draws in money and developers and we all make
money and thrive

Negatives:
- We need to distill our messages down into marketing sound bytes and
generalised rating systems and the like

- We need to be honest in describing ours and others projects because
that is what the market wants to hear before they will spend money on us


On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it 
> in various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:
>
>   - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
>   - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
>   - everything else
>
> With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; 
> I don't think much explanation should be required up front, especially if one 
> avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation".
>
> -mpg
>
>
> From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>
> There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
>
> Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for 
> a 5 star rating.
>
> Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
> OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are 
> packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit 
> that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our 
> marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the target audience?
>
> Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless 
> because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less 
> likely to know what "Graduated" means.
>
> We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
> Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.
>
> Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who 
> drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers 
> which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have 
> heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source packages are available 
> to replace their existing , but usually haven't heard of OSGeo and almost 
> certainly don't know about the graduation process. T

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

Michael, I think you have described here a 3 star system, and I've 
described a 4 star (which includes beta software), with my 5th star not 
allocated yet.


On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it in 
various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:

  - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
  - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
   
Note: a separate issue that OSGeo Incubation is facing is that projects 
don't have a strong incentive to complete incubation. Projects get 
similar marketing value whether they are incubating or incubated. 
Consequently they are spending a long time incubating.


I propose that projects ready to start incubation get the same rating as 
projects in incubation. Noticeable marketing credit is given to projects 
that have completed incubation.




  - everything else

With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; I don't think much 
explanation should be required up front, especially if one avoids jargon words like 
"graduated" and "incubation".
   

On the LiveDVD we have stable software and self described beta software.
Hence we would like to distinguish between the two.

-mpg

   



--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

Michael,
Your comments have been good in that they have made me think deeper 
about what OSGeo stands for and then how we market that. Successful 
product companies first find out what the market wants, the build a 
marketing message, then build the product to fit the market. Developing 
a shiny product then discovering no-one wants it is a sad but common story.


In our case, we have created a brand called "OSGeo Incubation". What 
does that mean? Why is it valuable? How can we get that message across 
to our target market of GIS users who are interested in Open Source but 
don't know what OSGeo is?


If OSGeo Incubation doesn't represent quality or maturity (which is what 
the market are looking for) then what is the point of spending years of 
volunteer time going through incubation?


I'm afraid that "OSGeo Project" is not a compelling sales message to our 
target market, unless we can tie the message to quality or maturity (or 
another word with similar meaning).


Unless we can provide such positive marketing, I expect that we will 
have spin off projects or organisations "defect" from OSGeo create their 
own marketing message. (I wouldn't be surprise if OpenGeo had similar 
thoughts before they created and then marketed the OpenGeo suite.)


Marketing like everything else has positives and negatives.
Positives:
+ Lots of users which draws in money and developers and we all make 
money and thrive


Negatives:
- We need to distill our messages down into marketing sound bytes and 
generalised rating systems and the like


- We need to be honest in describing ours and others projects because 
that is what the market wants to hear before they will spend money on us



On 08/06/10 09:17, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:

Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it in 
various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:

  - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
  - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
  - everything else

With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; I don't think much 
explanation should be required up front, especially if one avoids jargon words like 
"graduated" and "incubation".

-mpg


From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for a 
5 star rating.

Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by OSGeo 
at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are packaging 
and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit that a 
project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our marketing 
material in a manner that will be understood by the target audience?

Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless because the 
target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less likely to know what 
"Graduated" means.

We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.

Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who drop by the 
OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers which have "Open 
Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have heard of Open Source and 
want to know what Open Source packages are available to replace their existing , but 
usually haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the graduation 
process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges they should consider, and they 
definitely don't want to have to trawl through 350 software packages on 
http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk 
onto the other 50 exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we don't get 
such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at conferences.

So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable to GIS 
users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so that it 
doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?


On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread.]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not step up 
to the plate for providing such materials - for a

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Jody Garnett]

OSGeo has a mandate to support open source spatial; one of the ways it does so 
is by helping projects go through an incubation process (resulting a nice logo 
and some assurance that the project is in fact open source and spatial).

The live dvd is another part of promoting open source spatial.

Jody

On 08/06/2010, at 11:27 AM, Mark Leslie wrote:

> At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo projects 
> on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of the Live-DVD, 
> then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best packages available for 
> users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the best packages on the disk.  
> Presumably these could be graduated projects.
> 
> --
> Mark
> 
> 
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>  There have been some passionate views against rating projects.
>> Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for 
>> a 5 star rating.
>> Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
>> OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are 
>> packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit 
>> that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our 
>> marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the target 
>> audience?
>> Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless 
>> because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less 
>> likely to know what "Graduated" means.
>> We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
>> Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.
>> Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who 
>> drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers 
>> which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have 
>> heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source packages are 
>> available to replace their existing , but usually haven't heard of OSGeo 
>> and almost certainly don't know about the graduation process. They want to 
>> know about the best 2 or 3 packakges they should consider, and they 
>> definitely don't want to have to trawl through 350 software packages on 
>> http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, 
>> then walk onto the other 50 exhibition booths at the conference.
>> Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we don't 
>> get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
>> conferences.
>> So the challenge is:
>> * How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable to 
>> GIS users new to Open Source?
>> * How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
>> acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
>> * How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so that 
>> it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?
>> On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>> 
>>> [foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread…]
>>> 
>>> This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not 
>>> step up to the plate for providing such materials – for a variety of 
>>> reasons, some good and some not so good.
>>> 
>>> OSGeo should simply put a link to the project’s “marketing” section, and if 
>>> the project owners provide content on the other end, then good – if not, 
>>> then so be it.
>>> 
>>> I’m all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than 
>>> that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most 
>>> part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are 
>>> explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it 
>>> should be up to them to provide the “marketing” materials they deem 
>>> appropriate.
>>> 
>>> -mpg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
>>> <mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> 
>>> [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
>>> *To:* OSGeo Discussions
>>> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's what I've b

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All,

I guess it comes down to the argument of whether OSGEO stands for a state of 
mind, or should it be considered a brand only, not to be sullied by all those 
unwarmed projects?  Move over Apple, there's a new brand in town . . .

:c)

bobb



>>> Mark Leslie  06/07/10 8:27 PM >>>
At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo 
projects on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of 
the Live-DVD, then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best 
packages available for users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the 
best packages on the disk.  Presumably these could be graduated projects.

--
Mark



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Mark Leslie]

At the risk of sounding like a troll, why are we putting non-OSGeo 
projects on OSGeo marketing material?  If this is in fact the purpose of 
the Live-DVD, then the best way of identifying 2 or 3 of the best 
packages available for users to trial is to only include 2 or 3 of the 
best packages on the disk.  Presumably these could be graduated projects.


--
Mark


Cameron Shorter wrote:

  There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal 
for a 5 star rating.


Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we 
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we 
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process 
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the 
target audience?


Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is 
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo 
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.


We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on 
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.


Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people 
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and 
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS 
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source 
packages are available to replace their existing , but usually 
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the 
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges 
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl 
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we 
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
conferences.


So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable 
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so 
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?



On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:


[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread…]

This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have 
not step up to the plate for providing such materials – for a variety 
of reasons, some good and some not so good.


OSGeo should simply put a link to the project’s “marketing” section, 
and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good 
– if not, then so be it.


I’m all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more 
than that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for 
the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps 
that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source 
types, it should be up to them to provide the “marketing” materials 
they deem appropriate.


-mpg

 

*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
<mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org> 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques

*Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
*To:* OSGeo Discussions
*Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

 


All,

 


Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)

 

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort 
of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate 
a standardized look and feel to such things.


 


bobb

 




>>> Howard Butler  <mailto:hobu@gmail.com> wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
compare them?


/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing 
to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those 
"users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by 
having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is 
doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to 
them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the 
quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community.  A 
silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in 
any way.


It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type 
material from each p

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

Since this is an OSGeo-based CD, presumably with the OSGeo logo all over it in 
various places, I'd suggest there are only three kinds of projects:

 - those which are "Approved by OSGeo"
 - those which are "Undergoing OSGeo Approval"
 - everything else

With two simple logos you can indicate projects of the first two categories; I 
don't think much explanation should be required up front, especially if one 
avoids jargon words like "graduated" and "incubation".

-mpg


From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:57 PM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal for a 
5 star rating.

Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by OSGeo 
at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we are packaging 
and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we credit that a 
project has gone through the extensive graduation process in our marketing 
material in a manner that will be understood by the target audience?

Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is meaningless 
because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo and is even less 
likely to know what "Graduated" means.

We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on each 
Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.

Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people who drop 
by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and fliers which have 
"Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS users, have heard of Open 
Source and want to know what Open Source packages are available to replace 
their existing , but usually haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly 
don't know about the graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 
3 packakges they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to 
trawl through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 exhibition 
booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we don't get 
such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at conferences.

So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable to GIS 
users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so that it 
doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?


On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote: 
[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread.]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not step up 
to the plate for providing such materials - for a variety of reasons, some good 
and some not so good.
OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, and if the 
project owners provide content on the other end, then good - if not, then so be 
it.
I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than that 
is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most part, a 
very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are explicitly 
targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it should be up to 
them to provide the "marketing" materials they deem appropriate.
-mpg
 
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Bob Basques
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
 
All, 
 
Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c) 
 
That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things. 
 
bobb 
 


>>> Howard Butler  wrote:

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

There have been some passionate views against rating projects.

Maybe I should start by explaining the drivers which led to the proposal 
for a 5 star rating.


Previously only OSGeo graduated and incubation projects were promoted by 
OSGeo at conferences and the like, however, with the OSGeo LiveDVD, we 
are packaging and hence promoting many non-graduated projects. How do we 
credit that a project has gone through the extensive graduation process 
in our marketing material in a manner that will be understood by the 
target audience?


Unfortunately, putting "OSGeo Graduated" against a project is 
meaningless because the target audience usually hasn't heard of OSGeo 
and is even less likely to know what "Graduated" means.


We could write a paragrah explaining what OSGeo and Graduation are on 
each Project Overview flier, but that wastes valuable marketing real-estate.


Note: I'm basing our target audience on the typical profile of people 
who drop by the OSGeo booth at conferences. They pick up a LiveDVD and 
fliers which have "Open Source" on the cover. They are typically GIS 
users, have heard of Open Source and want to know what Open Source 
packages are available to replace their existing , but usually 
haven't heard of OSGeo and almost certainly don't know about the 
graduation process. They want to know about the best 2 or 3 packakges 
they should consider, and they definitely don't want to have to trawl 
through 350 software packages on http://freegis.org . They spend 5 to 20 
minutes talking at the OSGeo stand, then walk onto the other 50 
exhibition booths at the conference.
Visitors to the OSGeo website are probably similar in profile, but we 
don't get such a good opportunity to meet them face to face as we do at 
conferences.


So the challenge is:
* How do we credit OSGeo Graduated projects in a manner understandable 
to GIS users new to Open Source?
* How can we credit other stable Open Source projects, while still 
acknowledging the extra kudos of passing graduation?
* How can we provide this message distinctly on marketing material so 
that it doesn't waste valuable marketing real-estate?



On 08/06/10 02:30, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:


[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]

This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have 
not step up to the plate for providing such materials -- for a variety 
of reasons, some good and some not so good.


OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, 
and if the project owners provide content on the other end, then good 
-- if not, then so be it.


I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more 
than that is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for 
the most part, a very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps 
that are explicitly targeting users outside of the normal open source 
types, it should be up to them to provide the "marketing" materials 
they deem appropriate.


-mpg

*From:* discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Basques

*Sent:* Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
*To:* OSGeo Discussions
*Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

All,

Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort 
of thing themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate 
a standardized look and feel to such things.


bobb



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to 
compare them?


/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing 
to help the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those 
"users" of said ratings, and calls into question our credibility by 
having the arrogance to rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is 
doing enough by providing visibility for the projects, and it is up to 
them to pull them in as users with the quality of their software, the 
quality of their documentation, and the quality of their community.  A 
silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going to sway that process in 
any way.


It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type 
material from each project who wishes to participate to make their 
case to the envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not 
participate in this for whatever reason implicitly make a statement 
about their quality. That's going to be far more useful to both the 
projects and the users than an elongating graphic.


Howard___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinf

RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Michael P. Gerlek]

[foolishly stepping in where I should fear to tread...]
This has been asked for before, but historically some projects have not step up 
to the plate for providing such materials - for a variety of reasons, some good 
and some not so good.
OSGeo should simply put a link to the project's "marketing" section, and if the 
project owners provide content on the other end, then good - if not, then so be 
it.
I'm all about providing quality user experiences, but anything more than that 
is likely not worth the effort required.  Our users are, for the most part, a 
very savvy and discriminating bunch.  And for apps that are explicitly 
targeting users outside of the normal open source types, it should be up to 
them to provide the "marketing" materials they deem appropriate.
-mpg

From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] 
On Behalf Of Bob Basques
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 9:24 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating


All,


Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c)


That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things.


bobb



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way.

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All, 

Did anyone else hear that thunder in the distance?  :c) 

That's what I've been trying to say, let the projects handle this sort of thing 
themselves, but OSGEO CAN (and SHOULD in my mind) coordinate a standardized 
look and feel to such things. 

bobb 



>>> Howard Butler  wrote:


On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way.

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Howard Butler]

On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Bob Basques wrote:

> Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects before trying to compare 
> them?

/me screams into a room that no one can hear.  Stop it!

This whole exercise is quite frankly, masturbatory, and does nothing to help 
the projects who would be rated, provides very little to those "users" of said 
ratings, and calls into question our credibility by having the arrogance to 
rate *our own* projects in any way.  OSGeo is doing enough by providing 
visibility for the projects, and it is up to them to pull them in as users with 
the quality of their software, the quality of their documentation, and the 
quality of their community.  A silly sticker by us or anyone else isn't going 
to sway that process in any way. 

It would be more valuable to collate a series of "elevator pitch"-type material 
from each project who wishes to participate to make their case to the 
envisioned users of this rating.  Projects who do not participate in this for 
whatever reason implicitly make a statement about their quality. That's going 
to be far more useful to both the projects and the users than an elongating 
graphic.

Howard___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

Additionally . . . 

Things like Services, vs Desktop, vs Web Frameworks don't seem to be defined 
for comparison purposes.  Wouldn't it seem prudent to classify the projects 
before trying to compare them? 

bobb 



>>> Paolo Cavallini  wrote:

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
>
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ( 
> http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

Same here,  I would also lik to compare all Javascript like things with other 
javascript like projects for example. 

I'm not sure what the best approach to this type of thing either, but the 
Product data sheet seems like a reasonable method of applying a product summary 
that could be useful for most folks. 

bobb 



>>> Paolo Cavallini  wrote:

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
>
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ( 
> http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
--
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 07/06/2010 17:05, Yves Jacolin ha scritto:
> Boob,
> 
> You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ?

BTW, I wouldn't agree with many of the ratings.
All the best.
-- 
Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All, 

Close, but it's still got the five star thing, which I have to admit is
missleading.  Also, where are the criteria that were used to arrive at
those star ratings? . . .  I mean is that a popularity metirc?  In
relation to other projects, or simple number of downloads, etc. 

Also, the only way I could get GeoMoose to pop up, was by entering
GeoMoose into the search string.  This interface has some logic up front
that is arbitrarily being placed in there in some manner.  OpenJump
didn't come up either with the OSGEO sarch term. 

The layout is nice, but I was thinking more along the lines of a Product
spec sheet.  A long version, maybe a max page in length, and a shorter
version for use in the corner of a promotional page.  Some thike these
seem to have a lot of flexibility with regard to reuse by supporting
(commercial) interests in that the product sheets would look similar to
each other. 

bobb 



>>> Yves Jacolin  wrote:

Boob,

You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo (
http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ) ?

Regards,

Y.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :
> All,
>
> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized
chart of
> some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).
 One
> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.
>
> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some
from
> the conversation too):
>
> *  Incubation status
> *  Age of project
> *  Number of commiters
> *  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
> *  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
> *  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
> * etc. . . .
>
> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form
could
> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally
the
> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project
focus, so
> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the
standardized
> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
>
> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>
> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
> management and long term viability than an indication of software
> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant
rating
> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars
> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or
3
> which is not necessarily the case.
>
> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or
not
> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do
when
> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then
it
> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
> of software against them will be quite a task.
>
> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on
our
> communities.
>
> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from
OSGeo.
> >
> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think
the
> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is
a
> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from
such
> > ratings.
> >
> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> > * Project has completed incubati
on
> > * Project is in incubatio> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining 
> > this rating, (which may
be
> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential
for
> > conflict.

--
Yves Jacolin

http://yjacolin.gloobe.org
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Yves Jacolin]

Boob,

You mean something like this : http://www.ohloh.net/p?q=osgeo ?

Regards,

Y.
Le lundi 07 juin 2010 17:02:44, Bob Basques a écrit :
> All,
>
> Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized chart of
> some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).  One
> of these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.
>
> Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from
> the conversation too):
>
> *  Incubation status
> *  Age of project
> *  Number of commiters
> *  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
> *  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
> *  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
> * etc. . . .
>
> Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could
> be expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally the
> standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so
> that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized
> (smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
>
> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>
> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
> management and long term viability than an indication of software
> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs.
> However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating
> and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars
> (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3
> which is not necessarily the case.
>
> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not
> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when
> we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it
> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote
> earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece
> of software against them will be quite a task.
>
> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our
> communities.
>
> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
> >> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> >> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
> >
> > Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the
> > potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a
> > very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such
> > ratings.
> >
> > 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> > * Project has completed incubation
> > * Project is in incubation
> > * Project is not in incubation
> > What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
> >
> > 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be
> > refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for
> > conflict.

-- 
Yves Jacolin

http://yjacolin.gloobe.org
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Bob Basques]

All,

Instead of a 5 star rating, what about  using a small standardized chart of 
some sort.  5-10 items each with their own rating (or classification).  One of 
these items could be tied to the incubation process for example.

Some Items off the top of my head that would be useful (grabbing some from the 
conversation too):

*  Incubation status
*  Age of project
*  Number of commiters
*  Language(s)  (Perl, Javascript, Java, etc)
*  OS Supported (Window, Linux, Mac, etc)
*  Mobile Version (Yes/No)
* etc. . . .

Also upon thinking on this some more, this smaller standardized form could be 
expanded into a Specification sheet for each project.  Additionally the 
standardized form could be mixed and matched based on the project focus, so 
that the Project leader could decide which items go into the standardized 
(smaller, Short Version of a) chart for Marketing.

Just thinking out loud here.

bobb




>>> Daniel Morissette  06/06/10 7:21 PM >>>
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.

To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating 
and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars 
(because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 
which is not necessarily the case.

If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not 
then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when 
we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it 
will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.

In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our 
communities.

Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
>> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
>> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
>>
> 
> Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the 
> potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a 
> very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such 
> ratings.
> 
> 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> * Project has completed incubation
> * Project is in incubation
> * Project is not in incubation
> What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
> 
> 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
> refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for 
> conflict.
> 


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[P Kishor]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Daniel Morissette
 wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> AFAIK the objective of incubation is *NOT* to rate the maturity of projects:
> it is to verify that they have an open and active users and developers
> community, open and documented decision and development processes, that the
> source code is free from IP issues, and that as such the project seems
> viable and OSGeo is ready to stand behind it. That's the way incubation
> works today and I don't think we can go beyond that without hurting some
> people and eventually fragmenting our community.
>
> Of course it is easier for more mature projects to pass all those tests, but
> graduating incubation is not a software (source code) maturity indicator.
>
> Nowhere in the incubation process do we evaluate the quality, robustness,
> performance, user-friendlyness, usability, etc. of the software... so I
> repeat it: a star rating based solely on incubation status would mislead the
> users and could have some ill side-effects.
>

I agree with Daniel. Star ratings are misguided. Stars convey a
value-judgment that is neither intentional, nor calculated nor meant
to be conveyed. Nevertheless, a browser looking at a project that is
rated 3 stars versus a project that is rated 5 stars is bound to take
away an "opinion" that was never meant to be given.

Just state clearly what "graduated from incubation" means, indicate
whether a project has graduated or not, and then let the browser/user
decide.


> Daniel
>
> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>> I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of
>> thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing OSGeo
>> graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in the OSGeo
>> community.
>>
>> I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points which
>> should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until that
>> happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for projects going
>> into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for projects completing
>> graduation (assigned 4 stars).
>>
>>
>> Bruce Bannerman wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason / Cameron,
>>>
>>> >From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:
>>>
>>> I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation
>>> could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors described by
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is
>>> mostly based on having passed incubation or not.
>>>
>>> To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process
>>> management and long term viability than an indication of software
>>> quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. However, a
>>> star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating and would
>>> mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars (because it passed
>>> incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 which is not
>>> necessarily the case.
>>>
>>> If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not
>>> then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when we
>>> differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on
>>> www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it
>>> will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote earlier...
>>> and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece of software
>>> against them will be quite a task.
>>>
>>> In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried
>>> about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our
>>> communities.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> Cameron Shorter wrote:

 On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
>
> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble,
> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
>

 Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the
 potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a very
 strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such ratings.

 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
 * Project has completed incubation
 * Project is in incubation
 * Project is not in incubation
 What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be
 refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for
 conflict.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Daniel Morissette]

Cameron,

AFAIK the objective of incubation is *NOT* to rate the maturity of 
projects: it is to verify that they have an open and active users and 
developers community, open and documented decision and development 
processes, that the source code is free from IP issues, and that as such 
the project seems viable and OSGeo is ready to stand behind it. That's 
the way incubation works today and I don't think we can go beyond that 
without hurting some people and eventually fragmenting our community.


Of course it is easier for more mature projects to pass all those tests, 
but graduating incubation is not a software (source code) maturity 
indicator.


Nowhere in the incubation process do we evaluate the quality, 
robustness, performance, user-friendlyness, usability, etc. of the 
software... so I repeat it: a star rating based solely on incubation 
status would mislead the users and could have some ill side-effects.


Daniel

Cameron Shorter wrote:

Jason,
I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of 
thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing 
OSGeo graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in 
the OSGeo community.


I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points 
which should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until 
that happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for 
projects going into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for 
projects completing graduation (assigned 4 stars).



Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Jason / Cameron,

>From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:

I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation 
could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors 
described by Andrea.


This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.

Comments?


Bruce



Daniel Morissette wrote:
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.


To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant 
rating and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 
stars (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others 
with 2 or 3 which is not necessarily the case.


If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or 
not then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do 
when we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then 
it will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.


In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on 
our communities.


Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:

On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.




Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think 
the potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there 
is a very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained 
from such ratings.


1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential 
for conflict.











--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[paolo]

I agree. At this stage, the ranking could do more harm than good, both for 
developers and for users: can you imagine the consequences of giving diff 
rating to mapserver,geoserver and deegree? Or to grass, gvsig and qgis?
All the best.
---
Paolo Cavallini 
http://www.faunalia.it/pc

- Reply message -
Da: "Daniel Morissette" 
Data: lun, giu 7, 2010 02:15
Oggetto: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating
A: "OSGeo Discussions" 

I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.

To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating 
and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars 
(because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 
which is not necessarily the case.

If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not 
then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when 
we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it 
will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.

In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our 
communities.

Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:
> On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
>> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
>> infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
>>
> 
> Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the 
> potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a 
> very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such 
> ratings.
> 
> 1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
> * Project has completed incubation
> * Project is in incubation
> * Project is not in incubation
> What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.
> 
> 2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
> refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for 
> conflict.
> 


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

Jason,
I agree that it is important that any rating system has had a lot of 
thought put behind it, which is why I've suggested using the existing 
OSGeo graduation rating system - which has had input from many of us in 
the OSGeo community.


I do think that Andrea has highlighted a couple of additional points 
which should be rolled into the OSGeo incubation criteria - but until 
that happens, we should use what we have, which is guidelines for 
projects going into incubation (assigned 3 stars), and criteria for 
projects completing graduation (assigned 4 stars).



Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Jason / Cameron,

>From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:

I’d like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation 
could be considered a quality project with all of the vectors 
described by Andrea.


This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.

Comments?


Bruce



Daniel Morissette wrote:
I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.


To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant 
rating and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 
stars (because it passed incubation) does a better job than others 
with 2 or 3 which is not necessarily the case.


If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or 
not then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do 
when we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then 
it will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.


In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on 
our communities.


Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:

On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.




Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think 
the potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there 
is a very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained 
from such ratings.


1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential 
for conflict.








--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Daniel Morissette]

I'm also not too keen on a star ranking system, especially if it is 
mostly based on having passed incubation or not.


To me, passing incubation is more an indication of good process 
management and long term viability than an indication of software 
quality/robustness and ability to really solve the user's needs. 
However, a star ranking system makes me think of hotel/restaurant rating 
and would mislead the user to think that a software with 4 stars 
(because it passed incubation) does a better job than others with 2 or 3 
which is not necessarily the case.


If the goal is to denote whether a project has passed incubation or not 
then let's call the rating that way (which is what we currently do when 
we differentiate between graduated and in-incubation projects on 
www.osgeo.org). If we want to create a "project maturity rating" then it 
will have to take into account several variables as Andrea wrote 
earlier... and then defining those variables and evaluating each piece 
of software against them will be quite a task.


In the end, I just wanted to register the fact that I too am worried 
about the possible side-effects of a poorly handled rating system on our 
communities.


Daniel


Cameron Shorter wrote:

On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.




Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the 
potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a 
very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such 
ratings.


1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for 
conflict.





--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Bruce Bannerman]

Jason / Cameron,

>From the potential utiliser / implementer viewpoint:

I'd like to think that any project that has graduated OSGeo Incubation could be 
considered a quality project with all of the vectors described by Andrea.

This proposed rating system implies that this may not be the case.

Comments?


Bruce



On 6/06/10 10:14 AM, "Jason Birch"  wrote:

Wow, I'm really having opinions this week :)

IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, infighting, 
bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.

Jason

On 5 June 2010 16:37, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Andrea and others, does this fit with people's expectations?


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Stefan Steiniger]

speaking for a project, i.e. OpenJUMP, that will probably not enter 
OSGeo in the near future (its not that we don't want [we had a positive 
vote for last year], but a lack of - volunteer - time to do the 
necessary efforts and rather concentrate on improvements of the software):


I am fine with 5 stars as long as this ranking would be decribed 
somewhere at the bottom of the flyer - because we could have at max 3 
stars. Now, is there space for that?


And... the ranking doesn't need to be science (i like all the criteria 
outlined by Andrea, but...): The simpler the better to understand for 
the "potential user".


stefan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

On 06/06/10 12:23, Jody Garnett wrote:
I am also happy to see the marketing committee engaging with projects 
directly; I hope they also have some volunteer hours for writing and 
are not expecting developers to step away from their core 
responsibility to the codebase.

Jody,
Our aim is to create a standard documentation template, which will make 
creating marketing material much easier for projects, and then once 
created, will provide a wide avenue for publishing the material.


Maximise value, minimise effort.

We will still be asking people from projects to help populate the 
marketing material as these people know their projects better than 
anyone else.



--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

On 06/06/10 10:14, Jason Birch wrote:
IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, 
infighting, bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.




Jason, this is a valid concern with decent founding. However I think the 
potential for conflict is not as bad as you may think, and there is a 
very strong user community desire for, and value to be gained from such 
ratings.


1. We already have a rating system, based upon:
* Project has completed incubation
* Project is in incubation
* Project is not in incubation
What I'm suggesting is that we apply a star system to these stages.

2. We already have a criteria for defining this rating, (which may be 
refined), which reduces the subjectiveness and hence the potential for 
conflict.


--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Jody Garnett]

Agreed on it being a hassle.

However the OSGeo foundation also has a responsibility to users - who *really* 
want to see a feature list and to be able to compare projects. The foundation 
can take steps to help projects communicate - and this is the task/mandate of 
the marketing committee.

Competition and Collaboration are both key.

I am also happy to see the marketing committee engaging with projects directly; 
I hope they also have some volunteer hours for writing and are not expecting 
developers to step away from their core responsibility to the codebase.

Jody

On 06/06/2010, at 10:14 AM, Jason Birch wrote:

> Wow, I'm really having opinions this week :)
> 
> IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, infighting, 
> bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On 5 June 2010 16:37, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Andrea and others, does this fit with people's expectations?
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Jason Birch]

Wow, I'm really having opinions this week :)

IMHO getting into rating projects is just asking for trouble, infighting,
bitterness, and people/projects walking away from OSGeo.

Jason

On 5 June 2010 16:37, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Andrea and others, does this fit with people's expectations?
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Cameron Shorter]

On 06/06/10 05:10, Andrea Aime wrote:

Cameron Shorter ha scritto:
For the OSGeo LiveDVD and OSGeo marketing material, I propose we use 
a 5 star maturity rating. This is because it is too difficult to 
explain in a couple of words, the difference between: "Graduated", 
"In Incubation", "Stable", "Beta"
Again, I'm interested to hear comments on whether I have defined a 
good rating system, before we set it in stone.


A rating system, imho, should take into consideration multiple vectors:
- does the project have a long history?
- how big is the developers community (e.g. number of active committers
  in the last year)
- what are the steps taken to keep the code base quality high (unit
  tests, nightly builds, code reviews, and so on)
- how diversified is the developer community (are all developers 
affiliated to a single entity, or distributed among many? What is the

  bus factor in terms of companies)
- how live the development is (e.g., number of commits/changed files/
  size of the diff between today and one year ago)
- how big is the user community (e.g., nummber of subscribers to
  the users list)
- does it have user documentation
- does it have developer documentation
- does it have stable/frequent releases
- has it been awarded OSGEO project status, is it in incubation?

These  (and others) could be assigned some score, and then you could
sum them and get to an overall score.
Some elements could have a weight higher than others to accomodate
for relative importance (e.g., part of OSGEO could be weighted higher
than the other items).

Just my 2 cents

Cheers
Andrea



Andrea,
This is a good list and looks quite similar to the OSGeo Graduation 
checklist [1]
(You have a few extra suggestions which probably should be added to the 
checklist).


I propose that 4 stars are allocated to projects that have graduated. [1]

I propose that 3 stars are allocated to projects ready to enter 
incubation, as per Project Evaluation Criteria [2]. (We may need to make 
this criteria a bit more specific in future).


Andrea and others, does this fit with people's expectations?

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
[2] http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/evaluation.html

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] 5 Star OSGeo project maturity rating

[Andrea Aime]

Cameron Shorter ha scritto:
For the OSGeo LiveDVD and OSGeo marketing material, I propose we use a 5 
star maturity rating. This is because it is too difficult to explain in 
a couple of words, the difference between: "Graduated", "In Incubation", 
"Stable", "Beta"
Again, I'm interested to hear comments on whether I have defined a good 
rating system, before we set it in stone.


A rating system, imho, should take into consideration multiple vectors:
- does the project have a long history?
- how big is the developers community (e.g. number of active committers
  in the last year)
- what are the steps taken to keep the code base quality high (unit
  tests, nightly builds, code reviews, and so on)
- how diversified is the developer community (are all developers 
affiliated to a single entity, or distributed among many? What is the

  bus factor in terms of companies)
- how live the development is (e.g., number of commits/changed files/
  size of the diff between today and one year ago)
- how big is the user community (e.g., nummber of subscribers to
  the users list)
- does it have user documentation
- does it have developer documentation
- does it have stable/frequent releases
- has it been awarded OSGEO project status, is it in incubation?

These  (and others) could be assigned some score, and then you could
sum them and get to an overall score.
Some elements could have a weight higher than others to accomodate
for relative importance (e.g., part of OSGEO could be weighted higher
than the other items).

Just my 2 cents

Cheers
Andrea

--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss