Returning to this email thread:
1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
3 - attract more volunteers to incubation
I am happy with either wiki or IRC meeting to work through these topics.
4 - define, what should happen after successful
Hi Jachym,
I won’t be attending FOSS4GNA.
I suggest that if we are going down this track that we have and open process
that allows all interested to provide **constructive criticism** on what people
believe is broken.
Perhaps this could be done via the wiki.
We will then require a process
Whatever,
I would like to achieve:
1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
3 - define, what should happen after successful incubation, because I do
not believe in and lived happily ever after - to become the project,
certain level (checklist) has
Bruce,
your proposal is more then reasonable (think before you code) - I'm rather
thinking by coding. Very first question would be, whether more people (then
just me) have feeling, something in the incubation procedure as it is now
does not work (ergo should be fixed)?
I'm speaking from my
If we could add to your list:
4. Attract more volunteers to incubation
--
Jody Garnett
On 11 March 2015 at 06:05, Jachym Cepicky jachym.cepi...@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever,
I would like to achieve:
1 - attract more projects to osgeo umbrella
2 - attract little projects to osgeo umbrella
3
Hi Jody,
The work keeps falling back on the same people…
We still don’t have a clear rationale as to what is broken and what we’re
trying to fix.
I'm inclined to not do anything until this is clearly understood.
Bruce
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com
We need to be careful when playing around with our 'Incubation Procedure'.
It causes considerable angst and disruption to both mentors and to the
relevant communities going through incubation when we keep trying to change
to rules.
From my opinion as a mentor, the current process while
I will volunteer after foss4gna to look at this.
I am still interested in keeping our current procedure (as I think it is
producing good results) and relaxing the requirement for a mentor (which is
an embarrassing bottleneck).
Rather than a star system I think we can highlight how far along in
I recently came across a number of Open Source Maturity Methodologies,
which is worth being aware of, and possibly incorporating and/or
referencing from OSGeo Incubation processes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software_assessment_methodologies
On 27/02/2015 5:34 am, Angelos
Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more
agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake
up call for me [1]):
- review principles/value proposition of becoming an OSGeo project
- update the process to be more agile for all involved (note that this
It is also interesting to see the Apache incubator project list:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/
On 02/26/2015 08:24 PM, Tom Kralidis wrote:
Agreed. I think there is an opportunity for OSGeo to become more
agile in this manner (hobu's recent Proj4 tweet really provided a wake
up call for
I would like to get some time and, as Cameron pointed out, try to rewrite
current incubation checklist between new proposed star system
than we can start to talk about it again
then we can agree on something
then we can use it :)
sounds easy, right?
thanks
J
Mon Feb 23 2015 at 22:05:36
I agree we should revisit our incubation process and see how our former
OSGeo Labs fits in to the overall incubation process. I'm willing to
help. What is our next step?
Landon
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Jachym,
I think this is a
I concur, this subject came up at the osgeo code-sprint last week - it is
very difficult project projects like MetaCRS and JTS to consider graduating
from OSGeo due to our incubation requirements.
I would like to point out that projects should feel comfortable negotiating
a with the incubation
14 matches
Mail list logo
