I'm excited to see OSGeoLive engaged prominently in the criteria. I think that OSGeoLive has the potential to be a great asset to the education community and this is an excellent initiative to fast track this.
Have you been talking with someone from the OSGeoLive team about the practical implementation? (Angelos would be a good start). There are a few things that I think need to be thought through:
* OSGeoLive is currently space constrained to our distribution medium. Typically a 4 Gig or 8 Gig USB. Large teaching datasets could cause us challenges. We have options to address this, but it is something we should consider up front.
* OSGeoLive has remained a healthy project for 8 years in part because we have ensured our cost of maintenance doesn't exceed our volunteer capacity. We need to think through how can maintain any material created, and how we can keep maintenance requirements
to a minimum.
Re: evaluation criteria:
On 29/3/18 10:45 pm, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
an OSGeo Charter Member
* I'd suggest this be changed to "has demonstrable experience within the OSGeo community". One of our best technical contributors to OSGeoLive, who regularly also gave great council, as well as writing very good documentation, was someone who shunned titles
and has never signed up to be an OSGeo Charter member. (As I write this, I think he'd be a good candidate for this project - if he could be tempted). There are others like him. They shouldn't be excluded from applying.
On the other hand, there are some OSGeo Charter members who have done little after joining. I believe creating a "honey-pot" will lead to people applying for charter membership for personal benefit instead of altruistic reasons.
Proposer’s age (20 if < 40 years old; 0 if >40 years old)
* I question the purpose of this? If you are trying to increase young people applying, then an age break at 40 doesn't help the struggling end of the age spectrum. (I'd be more inclined to make a break at say 25).
I think you will find older people, will self select themselves out based on their typically higher pay grade.
I'd be inclined to remove this criteria all together.