While I stand by my original statement, I acknowledge the logistical
challenge of categorising OSGeoLive within the new OSGeo site (as
mentioned by Alex), and also respect what Jody is trying to achieve with
defining suitable categorisation.
I also feel that the issue is small enough that we need not waste a
significant amount of time debating it. I.e. I'd suggest we leave
OSGeoLive categorised as a community project for the moment, and hurry
up and prioritise pushing OSGeoLive through incubation. (Any volunteers
interested in stepping up? We need help building a list of our software
list, and confirming that it has an open license - I'm pretty sure this
is the case.
Cameron
On 23/1/18 11:39 am, Jody Garnett wrote:
That is correct Alex, because "incubation" references a mentorship
process that the development team is going through ... it has no
reflection on the technology (or indeed on the teams progress).
The website has three categories:
- listed on the website at all - required to be geospatial, open
source and accept contributions
- osgeo community - lists projects that are part of team osgeo, but
have not completed incubation. required to be geospatial, open source
and accept contirbutions. We ask for a more in-depth check of the
source code because we are now associated with the project team.
- osgeo project - completed the incubation process, so we trust both
the code and the teams procedures. Team is recognized as an
independent committee with osgeo budget etc...
Please review http://osgeo.org/committees/incubation for a better
explanation, including listing some of the benefits available.
--
Jody Garnett
On 22 January 2018 at 12:40, Alex M <tech_...@wildintellect.com
<mailto:tech_...@wildintellect.com>> wrote:
On 01/22/2018 12:20 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Jody,
>
> In OSGeo-Live IRC meeting today [1], Brian made a point that he
saw an
> email from you suggesting that OSGeoLive has been listed as an OSGeo
> Community project. This might just be a misunderstanding.
>
> But to be clear, we, the osgeolive project would prefer not to
be listed.
>
> From IRC logs:
>
> CameronShorter: +0, I’d prefer not to have community status
associated
> with OSGeoLive. To me it sets a level of expectation that
OSGeoLive is
> less mature than it is, and also suggests that other projects
with the
> community badge are as mature as OSGeoLive, which I think is not the
> right message to push
>
> [1]
http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeolive/%23osgeolive.2018-01-22.log
<http://irclogs.geoapt.com/osgeolive/%23osgeolive.2018-01-22.log>
>
That seems to be the tag, that all other projects who have applied for
incubation are under. I guess it's less clear on the new site which
things are applying to become "Projects" and which are not, as some of
the community projects have not applied for incubation.
Cameron, where do you suggest OSGeo Live gets listed instead? It was
added to community because it wasn't listed in either of the
categories
and therefore isn't shown on the navigation menus, so people may never
find it...
Thanks,
Alex
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier, Learnosity
Open Technologies Consultant
M +61 (0) 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
Live-demo@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://live.osgeo.org
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
