[Marketing] Thanks for your feedback on Website RFI

Cameron_Shorter · January 8, 2017, 1:10am

RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

···

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

Bob_Basques · January 8, 2017, 4:34am

All,

I think it’s more about describing the projects on an equal basis and letting the users decide which will work best for their particular need and supporting infrastructure. Maybe this is something that is created as a step between Incubation and Graduation of projects.

Something along the lines of a set of short descriptors for each project similar to what you might see when going out and comparing/buying any other software and/or hardware. Topics like:

Configuration options
Typical configuration
Built for what uses
Other uses
Project/Product overview
History
Why was it created
How is it used
Who uses it (typically)
Specifications
Component list
What’s it made of (Javascript, Java, C, etc)
What’s it run on.
What Standards are adhered to for/during development.
Accessories/Plugins
Extra Capability options
What other Projects/Products can it be used with.- Manuals and Support options.
Project Community pointers
Paid for support options.
Hmm, makes me think about how to badge up Companies related to supporting particular products/projects as some sort of certification process.

Just a quick list, probably other stuff that should be here in the list. But I think a focus on supplying this type of information on an even basis across all projects is the key. Even going so far as setting up online comparing options similar to buyinh a CPU where the data is presented side by side for each product/project.

bobb

···

On 01/07/2017 07:10 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
[Marketing@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:Marketing@lists.osgeo.org)
[http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing](http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing)

jive · January 8, 2017, 7:50am

I think we can provide a user focused experience … and let projects compete for the user-base that currently resides with ESRI. At this point in the market balance any move towards open source is a good direction. OSGeo can provide a platform for projects to communicate, and we can even provide resources to help them reach new users - it will still be up to each project to produce a compelling product.

It seems comments on the document are settling down, I reworded the projects / community projects / incubation section and could use some feedback.

···

On 7 January 2017 at 17:10, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

–
Jody Garnett

jive · January 8, 2017, 8:09am

Reading through your list … seems very tech focused (many users would not care which components or which language it was written in). If you follow the document comments you can see cameron and jeff going over the http://geonode.org “for users”, “for developers”, “for admins” presentation - I expect this is a more useful perspective.

I feel strongly that the approach taken by qgis and geoesrver community is a good one for listing “commercial support” providers - I really want to let each PSC highlight organizations that have made an ongoing commitment to their project, or have a history of successfully contributing to the project. See “ANNEX 3. Related Information” for links.

···

On 7 January 2017 at 20:34, Bob Basques <bbasques@sharedgeo.org> wrote:

All,

I think it’s more about describing the projects on an equal basis and letting the users decide which will work best for their particular need and supporting infrastructure. Maybe this is something that is created as a step between Incubation and Graduation of projects.

Something along the lines of a set of short descriptors for each project similar to what you might see when going out and comparing/buying any other software and/or hardware. Topics like:

Configuration options

Typical configuration

Built for what uses

Other uses

Project/Product overview

History

Why was it created

How is it used

Who uses it (typically)

Specifications

Component list

What’s it made of (Javascript, Java, C, etc)

What’s it run on.

What Standards are adhered to for/during development.

Accessories/Plugins

Extra Capability options

What other Projects/Products can it be used with.- Manuals and Support options.

Project Community pointers

Paid for support options.

Hmm, makes me think about how to badge up Companies related to supporting particular products/projects as some sort of certification process.

Just a quick list, probably other stuff that should be here in the list. But I think a focus on supplying this type of information on an even basis across all projects is the key. Even going so far as setting up online comparing options similar to buyinh a CPU where the data is presented side by side for each product/project.

bobb

On 01/07/2017 07:10 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
[Marketing@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:Marketing@lists.osgeo.org)
[http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing](http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing)
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

–
Jody Garnett

Jeffrey_Johnson · January 8, 2017, 2:41pm

Hi All,

Thanks again for all the feedback.

I want to ensure that we create a coherent user experience that
remains consistent as long as possible during the users 'Discovery'
phase. Im very much in favor of storing the information that drives
this kind of 'Guided Search' all in one place that is easily
maintained by the projects so that it can be surfaced in several
different ways including OSGeo-Live and info sheets for print. The key
thing though is to try to show the users the highlights of the
software and make it clear what it can do for them based on their
stated role. Its ok if they still end up with several options at the
'end' of their discovery/guided search, I don't think we necessarily
need to try to 'rank' projects against each other either, but should
try to show as much information as possible about each project in an
easy to digest way including indicating how active it is, what
commercial support is available etc. Cameron, agree that the
OSGeo-Live overview and project pages are the best/most current
manifestation of this idea, but we need to do a lot better from a
design perspective.

We are all developers and might just like something like this
https://djangopackages.org/grids/g/design/ ... but we need to step
back and see this from the perspective of someone who may be just
starting a GIS 101 course at university or a ArcMap user at a GIS
company who wants to explore open source and has no idea where to
start and is incredibly confused by all the terminology. I think any
competent design firm will be very familiar with how to do this in a
'beautiful' way and it can be setup in such a way that its
maintainable by the projects.

Jody, I think it should be very possible for each project's PSC or
maintainers to add indicate which commercial providers are active
contributors to their project, but also ones that might be just active
in its user community etc. Thanks for adding Annex III, I think we can
add several more links there.

All this leads to some discussion on the taxonomy of the content types
in the CMS and how to make sure we can easily maintain this content. I
think this will require some more focused discussion on how to best
achieve this once we start the project. We don't have to figure this
all out up front before the vendor starts.

I'm not sure who else is going to take the time to thoroughly review
this solicitation document, but we should be pretty close to something
we can use now I think.

Jeff

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@gmail.com> wrote:

Reading through your list ... seems very tech focused (many users would not
care which components or which language it was written in). If you follow
the document comments you can see cameron and jeff going over the
http://geonode.org "for users", "for developers", "for admins" presentation
- I expect this is a more useful perspective.

I feel strongly that the approach taken by qgis and geoesrver community is a
good one for listing "commercial support" providers - I really want to let
each PSC highlight organizations that have made an ongoing commitment to
their project, or have a history of successfully contributing to the
project. See "ANNEX 3. Related Information" for links.

--
Jody Garnett

On 7 January 2017 at 20:34, Bob Basques <bbasques@sharedgeo.org> wrote:

All,

I think it's more about describing the projects on an equal basis and
letting the users decide which will work best for their particular need and
supporting infrastructure. Maybe this is something that is created as a
step between Incubation and Graduation of projects.

Something along the lines of a set of short descriptors for each project
similar to what you might see when going out and comparing/buying any other
software and/or hardware. Topics like:

Configuration options

Typical configuration
Built for what uses
Other uses

Project/Product overview

History
Why was it created
How is it used
Who uses it (typically)

Specifications

Component list
What's it made of (Javascript, Java, C, etc)
What's it run on.
What Standards are adhered to for/during development.

Accessories/Plugins

Extra Capability options
What other Projects/Products can it be used with.

Manuals and Support options.

Project Community pointers
Paid for support options.

Hmm, makes me think about how to badge up Companies related to supporting
particular products/projects as some sort of certification process.

Just a quick list, probably other stuff that should be here in the list.
But I think a focus on supplying this type of information on an even basis
across all projects is the key. Even going so far as setting up online
comparing options similar to buyinh a CPU where the data is presented side
by side for each product/project.

bobb

On 01/07/2017 07:10 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

<bringing this conversation back on list>

RFI here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to
the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential
access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis
or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we've pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to
rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down,
particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some
guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at
https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears
the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on
OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference
between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items
stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the
store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance)
- each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a *consistent* set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
> <cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> No problem. I'm done reviewing.
>
> Thanks
>
>> Key message from me is:
>>
>> * Keep it simple and maintainable.
>>
>> * Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
>> OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already
>> achieving
>> some of the key goals of the website.
>
> I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
> anything. I've seen group after group of people completely confused as
> to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
> to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
> the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
> general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
> really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
> have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
> focused approach. In any case, I _do_ agree that we should align
> OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
> website on the ISO, but this big index page
> https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
> job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
> structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
> (including the info sheets).
>
> Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
> to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
> project.
>
>> Feel free to share this email.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

Bob_Basques · January 8, 2017, 10:04pm

All,

I think it’s more about describing the projects on an equal basis and letting the users decide which will work best for their particular need and supporting infrastructure. Maybe this is something that is created as a step between Incubation and Graduation of projects.

Something along the lines of a set of short descriptors for each project similar to what you might see when going out and comparing/buying any other software and/or hardware. Topics like:

Configuration options
Typical configuration
Built for what uses
Other uses
Project/Product overview
History
Why was it created
How is it used
Who uses it (typically)
Specifications
Component list
What’s it made of (Javascript, Java, C, etc)
What’s it run on.
What Standards are adhered to for/during development.
Accessories/Plugins
Extra Capability options
What other Projects/Products can it be used with.- Manuals and Support options.
Project Community pointers
Paid for support options.
Hmm, makes me think about how to badge up Companies related to supporting particular products/projects as some sort of certification process.

Just a quick list, probably other stuff that should be here in the list. But I think a focus on supplying this type of information on an even basis across all projects is the key. Even going so far as setting up online comparing options similar to buyinh a CPU where the data is presented side by side for each product/project.

bobb

···

On 01/07/2017 07:10 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
[Marketing@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:Marketing@lists.osgeo.org)
[http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing](http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing)

Basques_Bob_CI-StPau · January 9, 2017, 3:34pm

All,

I hardly ever ready all the specification of something I’m comparing with other stuff, at least until just before I start to use it. The general Idea was trying to convey was to present a similar expereince for all OSGeo Projects to the users, so if they need the info it’s there and they know where to look for it quickly, as well as compare them side by side.

I thought I left top level topics general enough so more sub-topics could be included in the listing by everyone else. I didn’t even have a preference on the ordering, but while there may not be many techies trying stuff out the first time, they are going to be involved in implementation at some point.

bobb

···

On 7 January 2017 at 17:10, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

RFI here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UJPiiVSV5U2CBaVFFjiHQ4qn1Vf5DOgEb83IFCxVQkw/edit#

Jeff,

I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding users to the best project.

The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer? QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.

As Jody has mentioned, we’ve pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down, particularly by projects with low ranking).

We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.

On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be the difference between a warehouse and a store.

It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some political cost.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our potential
users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
to have a consistent set of content that guides users to the project
that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
understand what I mean.

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

No problem. I’m done reviewing.

Thanks

Key message from me is:

Keep it simple and maintainable.

Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is already achieving
some of the key goals of the website.

I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
anything. I’ve seen group after group of people completely confused as
to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which software
to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all seem to do
the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
focused approach. In any case, I do agree that we should align
OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
website on the ISO, but this big index page
https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html isnt really doing the
job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
structured info about the projects that can be reused in many places
(including the info sheets).

Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much care
to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
project.

Feel free to share this email.

On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody

–
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254
-- 
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

–
Jody Garnett