Hi Massimo, I agree that we need a review process for all notebooks (not just GSoC).
+1 Angelos On 03/14/2016 01:11 AM, massimo di stefano wrote:
From the discussion we had so far it is clear to me we need a *official revision procedure* to have the work done for the GSoC integrated into the live. I agreed in “hiding” the jupyter notebook, and so the GSoC work, from this release of the Live, in favor of a transparent public commitment to review the efforts done. IMHO the spreadsheet approach we use for project review doesn’t apply very well in this context. To facilitate keeping track of the review and facilitate potential new contributors, I propose to open a motion in accepting the use of github checklist+issue tracker to keep track of the review process. I started this page, which should help in making this possible: https://github.com/epifanio/OSGeoLive-Notebooks/wiki/Notebook-review <https://github.com/epifanio/OSGeoLive-Notebooks/wiki/Notebook-review> <https://github.com/epifanio/OSGeoLive-Notebooks/wiki/Notebook-review <https://github.com/epifanio/OSGeoLive-Notebooks/wiki/Notebook-review>> We can improve it making it more clear, but should give you the idea. This motion is to validate the work done during GSoC, which is: “Development of educational material in the form of interactive notebooks” and to help the coordination between potential contributors for this specific topic. Here it is my +1 Cheers, Massimo.
-- Angelos Tzotsos, PhD OSGeo Charter Member http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos _______________________________________________ Live-demo mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo http://live.osgeo.org http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
