Difference between revisions of "Project Incubation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Apache Incubation Process: add link to comparison document.) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Tentative Members: Frank Warmerdam, Chris Holmes, Sean Gilles | Tentative Members: Frank Warmerdam, Chris Holmes, Sean Gilles | ||
| + | |||
| + | Requesting membership: Robert Bray | ||
== Apache Incubation Process == | == Apache Incubation Process == | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 22 February 2006
Project Incubation Committee
(NOTE: The following is all for discussion purposes, and not firmly established yet)
The project incubation committee is responsible for overseeing the incubation process for new projects entering the foundation. The incubation committee provides resources to assist new projects to reach full membership, and makes recommendations to the board when they feel projects have completed incubation.
Tentative Members: Frank Warmerdam, Chris Holmes, Sean Gilles
Requesting membership: Robert Bray
Apache Incubation Process
The Apache incubation process is serving as a rough guide for the OSGeo incubation process. Details can be found at:
A Apache vs. OSGeo Incubation Review discusses one view of how OSGeo incubation might be similar, and different from Apache incubation.
Incubation Completion Criteria
- Has the code been adequately vetted to assure it is all properly licensed? (Some notes at IP_Issues_Discussion_Document#Inbound_Contributions)
- Have all code committers signed appropriate Contributor Agreements. (Rich working on draft agreement)
- Does the project have a governance policy and a project management committee established that ensures decisions can be made, documented and adhered to?
- Is the developer community working in a reasonably healthy way? Open to input, new members and reaching consensus on decisions?
Issues
- How to deal with long term projects such as GRASS (started 1982) in terms of a Contributor Agreement? Is the Debian-Clearance and GPL clearance sufficient?