Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

jmckenna
Administrator
Hello Incubation committee,

As the mentor for the pycsw project (http://pycsw.org/), I would like to
make a motion for the pycsw project to enter OSGeo Incubation, with
myself as the mentor.

I believe this is the first step (making a motion).  Please let me know
if you need more information.

Personally I am watching this project grow, very fast, and am happy to
help it along.  I feel it would be very nice to have pycsw under the
OSGeo umbrella (http://www.ohloh.net/orgs/OSGeo/projects).

-jeff


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Frank Warmerdam
Jeff,

Is there an application for incubation document you could reference for this?

Best regards,
Frank

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff McKenna
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Incubation committee,
>
> As the mentor for the pycsw project (http://pycsw.org/), I would like to
> make a motion for the pycsw project to enter OSGeo Incubation, with
> myself as the mentor.
>
> I believe this is the first step (making a motion).  Please let me know
> if you need more information.
>
> Personally I am watching this project grow, very fast, and am happy to
> help it along.  I feel it would be very nice to have pycsw under the
> OSGeo umbrella (http://www.ohloh.net/orgs/OSGeo/projects).
>
> -jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator



--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Daniel Morissette
I believe we agreed that pycsw had to work a bit on the community
requirements before it could enter incubation.

Please see the following thread:

http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2013-January/002023.html

Daniel


On 13-03-20 3:20 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Is there an application for incubation document you could reference for this?
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff McKenna
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello Incubation committee,
>>
>> As the mentor for the pycsw project (http://pycsw.org/), I would like to
>> make a motion for the pycsw project to enter OSGeo Incubation, with
>> myself as the mentor.
>>
>> I believe this is the first step (making a motion).  Please let me know
>> if you need more information.
>>
>> Personally I am watching this project grow, very fast, and am happy to
>> help it along.  I feel it would be very nice to have pycsw under the
>> OSGeo umbrella (http://www.ohloh.net/orgs/OSGeo/projects).
>>
>> -jeff
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
>


--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

jmckenna
Administrator
In reply to this post by jmckenna
On 2013-03-20 10:15 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:

> Hello Incubation committee,
>
> As the mentor for the pycsw project (http://pycsw.org/), I would like to
> make a motion for the pycsw project to enter OSGeo Incubation, with
> myself as the mentor.
>
> I believe this is the first step (making a motion).  Please let me know
> if you need more information.
>
> Personally I am watching this project grow, very fast, and am happy to
> help it along.  I feel it would be very nice to have pycsw under the
> OSGeo umbrella (http://www.ohloh.net/orgs/OSGeo/projects).
>

Hi Frank, Daniel,

I was following the steps agreed in the last Incubation committee
meeting.  I was asked to make a motion.

-jeff



_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Daniel Morissette
What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?

We do have some light community requirements for graduation (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy to assist) I am cool with it.
-- 
Jody Garnett

On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 6:24 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

I believe we agreed that pycsw had to work a bit on the community
requirements before it could enter incubation.

Please see the following thread:


Daniel


On 13-03-20 3:20 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Jeff,

Is there an application for incubation document you could reference for this?

Best regards,
Frank

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Jeff McKenna
Hello Incubation committee,

As the mentor for the pycsw project (http://pycsw.org/), I would like to
make a motion for the pycsw project to enter OSGeo Incubation, with
myself as the mentor.

I believe this is the first step (making a motion). Please let me know
if you need more information.

Personally I am watching this project grow, very fast, and am happy to
help it along. I feel it would be very nice to have pycsw under the

-jeff


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list


--
Daniel Morissette
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman-2
Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I’d like us to be a bit more prescriptive of what we want from a community, particularly regarding an open development and governance process.

Please see my summary of the thread at [1] for context.

Bruce

[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2013-March/002090.html


On 21/03/13 10:01 AM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:

We do have some light community requirements for graduation (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy to assist) I am cool with it.

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Daniel Morissette
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>
> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
> to assist) I am cool with it.


After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
but it is an important factor to me.

So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
is still at the top of our checklist:

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

This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:

http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html

and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
on the lists when it entered incubation:

http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html

I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
of that specific requirement.

If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
obvious that they met the community requirements.

I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...


So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.

BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
project can give us an update?


P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the change.



--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Stephen Woodbridge
On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>
>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>
>
> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
> but it is an important factor to me.
>
> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
> is still at the top of our checklist:
>
> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>
> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>
> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>
>
> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>
> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>
>
> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
> of that specific requirement.
>
> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>
> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>
>
> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>
> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
> project can give us an update?
>
>
> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the change.

I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is
mostly orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has
been very active at times but has never attained any critical mass.
pgRouting is another project which is in much better shape having a good
community of users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a
real struggle to get things done and to build any momentum.

Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals)
as opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that
driving force leaving and having the project collapse.

I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community.
Being able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it
is clear when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what
is needed for a self sustaining community.

-Steve W
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Bruce Bannerman-2
Fair enough, can I just double check if we are taking a requirement: to enter incubation, or if this is respect to graduating (i.e. being recognised an OSGeo project).

We have been fine with taking on projects that do not have a balanced community before, or have not yet decided how to handle open governance - and have some great example of these being addressed during incubation.

-- 
Jody Garnett

On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 10:52 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:

Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Jody,

I’d like us to be a bit more prescriptive of what we want from a community, particularly regarding an open development and governance process.

Please see my summary of the thread at [1] for context.

Bruce

[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/2013-March/002090.html


On 21/03/13 10:01 AM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:

We do have some light community requirements for graduation (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy to assist) I am cool with it.


_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman-2
Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] My preference is to have this addressed during Incubation if it hasn’t been before.

This will allow us to encourage and mentor promising projects.

Bruce


On 21/03/13 2:18 PM, "Jody Garnett" <jody.garnett@...> wrote:


 Fair enough, can I just double check if we are taking a requirement: to enter incubation, or if this is respect to graduating (i.e. being recognised an OSGeo project).

We have been fine with taking on projects that do not have a balanced community before, or have not yet decided how to handle open governance - and have some great example of these being addressed during incubation.

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Role of Community requirement in incubation

jody.garnett
In reply to this post by Daniel Morissette
Interesting - I do not think of a project entering incubation as any kind of endorsement (indeed it is almost a vote against as it acknowledges that a project has some open risks associated with its use). However it is a recognition that OSGeo is in position to help.

I do not expect all projects that enter incubation will graduate.

On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
Interesting, if we are going to demand a "balanced" community before accepting projects that is fine - but I would like us to be upfront about this and put it in our application form as a requirement.
BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
project can give us an update?
I am afraid I missed that discussion as it was during the holidays in Australia. If it did result in a change of position for the members of this committee - we should update our requirements to match.
P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the change.
Thanks for the excellently written email, and I apologise for being out of touch on this discussion. 

How would you like to proceed on this one? Discuss on the email, make a motion, remain stalled.

It seems we have two discussion on the table:

1) Is an open/balanced community a requirement to enter incubation, or only to graduate 

2) Be more bit more prescriptive on what we want from community

Jody

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Landon Blake-2
In reply to this post by Stephen Woodbridge
The message below should have gone to the whole group.

Landon


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Landon Blake <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
To: Stephen Woodbridge <[hidden email]>


It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
"healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.

If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
that flexibility.

I would recommend the following steps:

1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.

2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
projects seeking incubation.

I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
incubation, if necessary.

Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.

Landon


On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>
>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>>
>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
>> but it is an important factor to me.
>>
>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
>> is still at the top of our checklist:
>>
>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>
>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>>
>>
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>>
>>
>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>>
>>
>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>>
>>
>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
>> of that specific requirement.
>>
>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>>
>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>>
>>
>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>>
>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
>> project can give us an update?
>>
>>
>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
>> change.
>
>
> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is mostly
> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has been very
> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
> another project which is in much better shape having a good community of
> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real struggle to
> get things done and to build any momentum.
>
> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) as
> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that driving
> force leaving and having the project collapse.
>
> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. Being
> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is clear
> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is needed
> for a self sustaining community.
>
> -Steve W
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Cameron Shorter
It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW
included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.

Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them.
I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation,
as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions
about community.

On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:

> The message below should have gone to the whole group.
>
> Landon
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Landon Blake <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
> To: Stephen Woodbridge <[hidden email]>
>
>
> It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
> "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
> agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.
>
> If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
> open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
> be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
> requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
> that flexibility.
>
> I would recommend the following steps:
>
> 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
> surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.
>
> 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
> come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
> projects seeking incubation.
>
> I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
> I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
> incubation, if necessary.
>
> Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.
>
> Landon
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>>>
>>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
>>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
>>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
>>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
>>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
>>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
>>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
>>> but it is an important factor to me.
>>>
>>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
>>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
>>> is still at the top of our checklist:
>>>
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>
>>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
>>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
>>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
>>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
>>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>>>
>>>
>>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
>>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
>>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
>>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
>>> of that specific requirement.
>>>
>>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
>>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
>>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>>>
>>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
>>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
>>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
>>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
>>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
>>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
>>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>>>
>>>
>>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
>>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
>>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
>>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>>>
>>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
>>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
>>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
>>> project can give us an update?
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
>>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
>>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
>>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
>>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
>>> change.
>>
>> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is mostly
>> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has been very
>> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
>> another project which is in much better shape having a good community of
>> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real struggle to
>> get things done and to build any momentum.
>>
>> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
>> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) as
>> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that driving
>> force leaving and having the project collapse.
>>
>> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
>> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. Being
>> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is clear
>> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is needed
>> for a self sustaining community.
>>
>> -Steve W
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator


--
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

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Role of Community requirement in incubation

Arnulf Christl
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/21/2013 03:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Interesting - I do not think of a project entering incubation as
> any kind of endorsement (indeed it is almost a vote against as it
> acknowledges that a project has some open risks associated with
> its use). However it is a recognition that OSGeo is in position to
> help.

But effectively it is an endorsement. The difference of "in
incubation" and "graduated" is a teeny weeny little splotch of green
pixels - and most people will not even be able to tell the difference.

> I do not expect all projects that enter incubation will graduate.

Fact is, so far all have (or are still stuck).

> On Thursday, 21 March 2013 at 12:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

snip

>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this
>> committee, and if the rest of the group wants to relax this
>> community requirement and change the graduation rules then so be
>> it. I would question this move and its impact on the OSGeo
>> portfolio of projects down the road, but would not stubbornly
>> object if there are good arguments for the change.

I would stubbornly refuse to accept a project that does not have a
sizable and balanced community (if I was aware of it in time and
managed to put my veto in). I have seen too many projects go dead in
the water and clog arteries of otherwise healthy organizations to just
rubber stamp things and go ahead.

> Thanks for the excellently written email, and I apologise for being
> out of touch on this discussion.

Jody,
please don't apologize. If you would need to apologize for being out
of touch then the rest of the pack around the Incubation committee
would already sweat in hell (this is another awkward way of saying
thanks for keeping the wheel turning :-).

> How would you like to proceed on this one? Discuss on the email,
> make a motion, remain stalled.

Yes, please. :-)

> It seems we have two discussion on the table:
>
> 1) Is an open/balanced community a requirement to enter incubation,
> or only to graduate

I suggest to have a short period for people to express their
sentiments and then make this a motion (like Daniel I was under the
impression that this *is* already a requirement for acceptance into
incubation and that we send projects to labs if they still want to
grow).

> 2) Be more bit more prescriptive on what we want from community
>
> Jody

s/prescriptive/descriptive ?

Let it flow. Maybe we can find some consensus around how to word this.
Honestly, this point is so soft that everybody will eventually have
expressed at least three different opinions if we don't time box it.
But lets try anyway.

In my opinion this will always be an individual, opinionated, erratic,
and ugly decision. For each single new project we accept. It will
simply be impossible to set up significantly quantifiable criteria.
The reason is that projects are so immensely different in scope, need,
architecture language and relevance. And this is Exactly What We Are
Here For, right?

Have fun,
Arnulf

PS:
I keep revisiting the need to revisit our projects after some time but
am not going to bring it up again except in post scripta like this one.

> _______________________________________________ Incubator mailing
> list [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>


- --
Seven of Nine
http://arnulf.us/Seven
Exploring Body, Space and Mind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFMsVMACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3t4wCfUsiOwj8Bc4QBvKdWRfvsvJHu
kGEAn3ElSe9oV5n3Id5kDHhM16FMbdxc
=nU30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

tomkralidis
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Cameron: thanks for the ping.
 
For reference, the initial application can be found at http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029
 
To elaborate on Cameron's comments:
 
- pycsw powers GeoNode (http://geonode.org/) CSW server functionality
- pycsw powers Open Data Catalogue (https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog) CSW server functionality.  ODC is part of Code for America (http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6)
- pycsw has been chosen to power CKAN (http://ckan.org/) CSW server functionality, replacing the current CSW component.  Integration is in progress (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html).  CKAN will power the next iteration of the US data.gov project (http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/)
 
The abovementioned projects have significant and active communities, and as a result some pycsw activity and discussion naturally happens in those spaces.
 
Hope this helps.  And looking forward to the incubation requirements being flushed out and more clearly articulated moving forward.


----------------------------------------

> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:23:52 +1100
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
>
> It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW
> included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.
>
> Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them.
> I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation,
> as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions
> about community.
>
> On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:
> > The message below should have gone to the whole group.
> >
> > Landon
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Landon Blake <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
> > To: Stephen Woodbridge <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> > It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
> > "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
> > agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.
> >
> > If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
> > open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
> > be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
> > requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
> > that flexibility.
> >
> > I would recommend the following steps:
> >
> > 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
> > surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.
> >
> > 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
> > come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
> > projects seeking incubation.
> >
> > I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
> > I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
> > incubation, if necessary.
> >
> > Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.
> >
> > Landon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> >>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> >>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
> >>>>
> >>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
> >>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
> >>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
> >>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
> >>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
> >>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
> >>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
> >>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
> >>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
> >>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
> >>> but it is an important factor to me.
> >>>
> >>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
> >>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
> >>> is still at the top of our checklist:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
> >>>
> >>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
> >>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
> >>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
> >>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
> >>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
> >>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
> >>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
> >>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
> >>> of that specific requirement.
> >>>
> >>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
> >>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
> >>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
> >>>
> >>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
> >>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
> >>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
> >>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
> >>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
> >>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
> >>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
> >>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
> >>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
> >>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
> >>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
> >>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
> >>> project can give us an update?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
> >>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
> >>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
> >>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
> >>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
> >>> change.
> >>
> >> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is mostly
> >> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has been very
> >> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
> >> another project which is in much better shape having a good community of
> >> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real struggle to
> >> get things done and to build any momentum.
> >>
> >> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
> >> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) as
> >> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that driving
> >> force leaving and having the project collapse.
> >>
> >> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
> >> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. Being
> >> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is clear
> >> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is needed
> >> for a self sustaining community.
> >>
> >> -Steve W
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Incubator mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
> > _______________________________________________
> > Incubator mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
>
> --
> 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
>    
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Cameron Shorter
Based on Tom's description of downstream community, I'm confident that
the pycsw project has sufficient interest that it is set to become an
important Open Source project for a long time to come.
I'm +1 for bringing pycsw into incubation.

On 23/03/2013 7:01 AM, Tom Kralidis wrote:

> Cameron: thanks for the ping.
>  
> For reference, the initial application can be found at http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029
>  
> To elaborate on Cameron's comments:
>  
> - pycsw powers GeoNode (http://geonode.org/) CSW server functionality
> - pycsw powers Open Data Catalogue (https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog) CSW server functionality.  ODC is part of Code for America (http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6)
> - pycsw has been chosen to power CKAN (http://ckan.org/) CSW server functionality, replacing the current CSW component.  Integration is in progress (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html).  CKAN will power the next iteration of the US data.gov project (http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/)
>  
> The abovementioned projects have significant and active communities, and as a result some pycsw activity and discussion naturally happens in those spaces.
>  
> Hope this helps.  And looking forward to the incubation requirements being flushed out and more clearly articulated moving forward.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:23:52 +1100
>> From: [hidden email]
>> To: [hidden email]
>> CC: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
>>
>> It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW
>> included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.
>>
>> Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them.
>> I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation,
>> as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions
>> about community.
>>
>> On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:
>>> The message below should have gone to the whole group.
>>>
>>> Landon
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Landon Blake <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
>>> To: Stephen Woodbridge <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
>>> "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
>>> agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.
>>>
>>> If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
>>> open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
>>> be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
>>> requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
>>> that flexibility.
>>>
>>> I would recommend the following steps:
>>>
>>> 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
>>> surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.
>>>
>>> 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
>>> come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
>>> projects seeking incubation.
>>>
>>> I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
>>> I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
>>> incubation, if necessary.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.
>>>
>>> Landon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>>>>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>>>>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is happy
>>>>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people seem to
>>>>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against pycsw?)
>>>>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
>>>>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
>>>>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is important for
>>>>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
>>>>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
>>>>> but it is an important factor to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and healthy
>>>>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation. This
>>>>> is still at the top of our checklist:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my own
>>>>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of every
>>>>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this with
>>>>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for instance
>>>>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open communication
>>>>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
>>>>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to hope
>>>>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation because
>>>>> of that specific requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated, you will
>>>>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
>>>>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
>>>>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a decent
>>>>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of people)
>>>>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based on the
>>>>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
>>>>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and still
>>>>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the guys
>>>>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them and am
>>>>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
>>>>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
>>>>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already and we
>>>>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
>>>>> project can give us an update?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this committee,
>>>>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community requirement
>>>>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
>>>>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
>>>>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
>>>>> change.
>>>> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is mostly
>>>> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has been very
>>>> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
>>>> another project which is in much better shape having a good community of
>>>> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real struggle to
>>>> get things done and to build any momentum.
>>>>
>>>> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of any
>>>> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of individuals) as
>>>> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that driving
>>>> force leaving and having the project collapse.
>>>>
>>>> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not followed it,
>>>> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong community. Being
>>>> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is clear
>>>> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is needed
>>>> for a self sustaining community.
>>>>
>>>> -Steve W
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Incubator mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>  


--
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

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Daniel Morissette
Same here, +1. Thank you Tom for providing the extra details and I'm
looking forward to finding out more about pycsw.

Daniel


On 13-03-22 4:05 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Based on Tom's description of downstream community, I'm confident that
> the pycsw project has sufficient interest that it is set to become an
> important Open Source project for a long time to come.
> I'm +1 for bringing pycsw into incubation.
>
> On 23/03/2013 7:01 AM, Tom Kralidis wrote:
>> Cameron: thanks for the ping.
>> For reference, the initial application can be found at
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1029
>> To elaborate on Cameron's comments:
>> - pycsw powers GeoNode (http://geonode.org/) CSW server functionality
>> - pycsw powers Open Data Catalogue
>> (https://github.com/azavea/Open-Data-Catalog) CSW server
>> functionality.  ODC is part of Code for America
>> (http://brigade.codeforamerica.org/applications/6)
>> - pycsw has been chosen to power CKAN (http://ckan.org/) CSW server
>> functionality, replacing the current CSW component.  Integration is in
>> progress
>> (http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pycsw-devel/2013-January/000152.html).
>> CKAN will power the next iteration of the US data.gov project
>> (http://ckan.org/2013/02/04/us-data-gov-to-use-ckan/)
>> The abovementioned projects have significant and active communities,
>> and as a result some pycsw activity and discussion naturally happens
>> in those spaces.
>> Hope this helps.  And looking forward to the incubation requirements
>> being flushed out and more clearly articulated moving forward.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:23:52 +1100
>>> From: [hidden email]
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> CC: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation
>>> process
>>>
>>> It has recently been pointed out to me that pycsw is the default CSW
>>> included in GeoNode, and there is discussion about including into CKAN.
>>>
>>> Both GeoNode and CKAN are projects with funded communities behind them.
>>> I'd be interested to hear the pycsw team explain the current situation,
>>> as I believe that this situation would be a suitable answer to questions
>>> about community.
>>>
>>> On 23/03/2013 4:04 AM, Landon Blake wrote:
>>>> The message below should have gone to the whole group.
>>>>
>>>> Landon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Landon Blake <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Incubator] Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process
>>>> To: Stephen Woodbridge <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like we need to make a decision about the requirements for a
>>>> "healthy community" before a project is admitted to incubation. I
>>>> agree that we need to apply the rules equally to all projects.
>>>>
>>>> If we do move foward with some requirements for community around the
>>>> open source projects applying for incubation, I think we should try to
>>>> be specific about the requirements. If we are specific with the
>>>> requirements I think we can still be flexible if special cases merit
>>>> that flexibility.
>>>>
>>>> I would recommend the following steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We decide if there should be requirements about the community
>>>> surrounding a project to enter incubation, with a vote if needed.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we are going to make this a requirement for incubation, then we
>>>> come up with some specific requirements we can communicate to the
>>>> projects seeking incubation.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have strong feelings about this requirement either way, and
>>>> I'm happy to help projects witih community building in labs before
>>>> incubation, if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps someone can make a motion on Item #1 to move us forward.
>>>>
>>>> Landon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Woodbridge
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/2013 9:19 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>>>>> On 13-03-20 7:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>>>>> What are you expecting to see for community requirement Daniel?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do have some light community requirements for graduation
>>>>>>> (developers/community communicating well), as long as the project
>>>>>>> understands those requirements for graduation (and the mentor is
>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>> to assist) I am cool with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After reading the last IRC meeting logs I see that some people
>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>> interpret my position as being negative (or maybe even against
>>>>>> pycsw?)
>>>>>> ... it is not... I am very positive and constructive. I find that the
>>>>>> community is one of the best ways to measure the viability of an open
>>>>>> source project in the long run. And I consider that it is
>>>>>> important for
>>>>>> OSGeo as an organization to ensure that projects are viable before
>>>>>> deciding to stand behind them. Community is not everything of course,
>>>>>> but it is an important factor to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, this committee has considered that "an open, active and
>>>>>> healthy
>>>>>> user and developer community" is a key requirement for graduation.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> is still at the top of our checklist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This criteria is extremely important to me, it is at the top of my
>>>>>> own
>>>>>> list and I have personally been checking the community aspect of
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> project that has gone through incubation. I have insisted on this
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> every project including those that I mentored myself. See for
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> my comment about MapGuide's community which predate our checklist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/MapGuide-ready-to-graduate-td3712195.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and then my comments about FDO's lack of comunity and open
>>>>>> communication
>>>>>> on the lists when it entered incubation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/FDO-Incubation-Progress-Reports-td3897711.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I even remember having a face to face meeting with the FDO guys about
>>>>>> this requirement and the work that they had to do on this front to
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>> to be able to graduate. IIRC we even delayed the FDO graduation
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> of that specific requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you look at my review of other projects that have graduated,
>>>>>> you will
>>>>>> see similar comments from me on most projects, unless it was already
>>>>>> obvious that they met the community requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I came to the conclusion over time that Incubator is not the place to
>>>>>> build a community, hence my requirement on new projects to have a
>>>>>> decent
>>>>>> community (whatever that means, at least more than a handfull of
>>>>>> people)
>>>>>> before entering incubation. Maybe I'm wrong (very possible based
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> discussion we're having now), so I will not -1 any project entering
>>>>>> incubation because of this, I will just -0 which is not a veto and
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> allows it to pass if there are enough +1 votes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to make a long story short, I have nothing against pycsw or the
>>>>>> guys
>>>>>> behind the project. It's actually quite the contrary, I know them
>>>>>> and am
>>>>>> convinced that they are as open as can be... but I have to apply the
>>>>>> same rules to every project and that's what I'm trying to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, it was already a few months ago that we discussed the pycsw
>>>>>> community size. Maybe things have evolved significantly already
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> don't even need to have this discussion? Maybe someone from the pycsw
>>>>>> project can give us an update?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Please also keep in mind that I am only one vote on this
>>>>>> committee,
>>>>>> and if the rest of the group wants to relax this community
>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>> and change the graduation rules then so be it. I would question this
>>>>>> move and its impact on the OSGeo portfolio of projects down the road,
>>>>>> but would not stubbornly object if there are good arguments for the
>>>>>> change.
>>>>> I support Daniel on these points. I am involved with PAGC which is
>>>>> mostly
>>>>> orphaned from lack of community and development support. It has
>>>>> been very
>>>>> active at times but has never attained any critical mass. pgRouting is
>>>>> another project which is in much better shape having a good
>>>>> community of
>>>>> users but is weak in development and leadership. It is a real
>>>>> struggle to
>>>>> get things done and to build any momentum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having a well rounded community is key to the long term survival of
>>>>> any
>>>>> project. If the moving force is a single (or small group of
>>>>> individuals) as
>>>>> opposed to more broad based support it is at risk of the the that
>>>>> driving
>>>>> force leaving and having the project collapse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not trying to imply anything about pycsw as I have not
>>>>> followed it,
>>>>> only that there is a lot of validity in requiring a strong
>>>>> community. Being
>>>>> able to quantify what "strong" is may be more subjective, but it is
>>>>> clear
>>>>> when you look at struggling projects that they do not have what is
>>>>> needed
>>>>> for a self sustaining community.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Steve W
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Incubator mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>
>


--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to identify OSGeo projects that should be retired

Cameron Shorter
In reply to this post by Arnulf Christl
On 23/03/2013 6:30 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
> PS:
> I keep revisiting the need to revisit our projects after some time but
> am not going to bring it up again except in post scripta like this one.

Noting that OSGeo and OSGeo-Live can be considered a "Badge of Quality"
and "Level of Endorsement" I agree with Arnulf that in order to retain
that reputation for quality that we need to periodically monitor our
OSGeo projects and ensure that they are continuing to progress as
healthy projects.
I'd go as far as to argue that our successful projects are increasing in
quality over time, and as such, our "quality requirements" from OSGeo
projects should increase as well.
But for the moment, I'll focus this discussion on periodic monitoring of
project health.

We are fortunate enough to have an established periodic process which
evaluates some aspects of project health through the OSGeo-Live project.
I'd suggest that the OSGeo-Live build process could be extended slightly
to add some checks to evaluate project health, which in turn might
result in legacy projects being retired.

The primary area I think we should be looking out for is that project
becomes obsolete, usually due to another project stealing market share.
So how do we recognise such a project, and then suggest that they
de-register as an OSGeo project?

Typically a project which is becoming obsolete will:
1. Start loosing its community and sponsors
2. Then start loosing its developers
3. This is recognisable by a reduction in traffic on email lists,
reduced code commits, reduced releases of the software, reduced
commitment from projects to keep the software and documentation
maintained on OSGeo-Live releases.

Note that reduced software releases can also be attributed to
established projects which have fully reached their potential and don't
require any more work.

Ohloh provides metrics about Open Source projects, and I've started
aggregating details I could find into:
http://adhoc.osgeo.osuosl.org/livedvd/docs/en/metrics.html

Also, we can determine which projects have been putting out new releases
from our OSGeo-Live package status sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Al9zh8DjmU_RdGIzd0VLLTBpQVJuNVlHMlBWSDhKLXc#gid=13

We are already verifying that projects are updated to work with the
latest Ubuntu.

So I suggest that OSGeo and OSGeo-Live incubation criteria be updated to
include a requirement to configure Ohloh for each project.

And then during each OSGeo-Live release, we should question projects
which have not put out a release for the last year if they still have a
community behind them, and maybe whether it would be appropriate to
retire the project from OSGeo or OSGeo-Live.




--
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

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to identify OSGeo projects that should be retired

jody.garnett
Ohloh provides metrics about Open Source projects, and I've started
aggregating details I could find into:
Amused to see how confused for Ohloh gets when we keep moving repositories around, for a while it was tracking 3 geotools repositories and completely out to lunch on project size.

So please take Ohloh with a grain of salt, it is only as good as volunteers wiring up the metrics. 
So I suggest that OSGeo and OSGeo-Live incubation criteria be updated to
include a requirement to configure Ohloh for each project.
I am hard pressed to place any more requirements on incubation, we need to focus on the basics and get projects through the process. Perhaps "basics" is downplaying what we are up to - for contrast Eclipse Foundation does not let a project release anything until their code review is complete. I understand as they may be a danger to themselves and others.

Still of the live-dvd is going to display that information it would be good to collect it.

Aside: If you can do me a favour of making a live-dvd motion to use your project summaries from the osgeo site it would be appreciated, the information we have in drupal looks terrible and is often wrong.
And then during each OSGeo-Live release, we should question projects
which have not put out a release for the last year if they still have a
community behind them, and maybe whether it would be appropriate to
retire the project from OSGeo or OSGeo-Live.
A reminder that you do have project officers reporting the the board, perhaps they can play a role.

Cheers,
Jody

_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Motion for pycsw to enter Incubation process

Dimitris Kotzinos
In reply to this post by jmckenna
+1 for pycsw to enter incubation
+1 for Geomoose to graduate

As a side note for the discussions: for me one important (and certainly
not easy to measure) aspect for a project is its evolution over time. I
think that we need to discuss whether we can have some progress
indicators in place.

Let me take the opportunity and say kudos to Jody (btw, Jody your last
e-mail is excellent in terms of the list's functioning) and the rest of
people who are widely active in this list - software and its evolution
is critical for OSGEO.

Best,

Dimitris
_______________________________________________
Incubator mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
12