Hi all,
Looks like all the nominations are in.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Time to commence with the voting!! Here is my proposal for going about doing this.
1. We find a volunteer who was not nominated to gather the votes
2. Everybody gets 5 votes. Voting is open to any interested parties.
3. We choose the 7 people who received the most votes.
What do people think?
-Justin
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
jdeolive@anonymised.com
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like all the nominations are in.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Time to commence with the voting!! Here is my proposal for going about doing this.
1. We find a volunteer who was not nominated to gather the votes
Brent? We all trust him and he some how escaped being nominated?
2. Everybody gets 5 votes. Voting is open to any interested parties.
Interested parties very good, so we send out an "email" asking people to send their picks to Brent?
3. We choose the 7 people who received the most votes.
Seems like a large number to get work done, I know the geotools like 70% to get anything done, so you would
need 5 people to attend IRC meetings? Yeah okay that can work...
What do people think?
Rock on 
I can collect the votes, no problem.
Brent Owens
(The Open Planning Project)
Jody Garnett wrote:
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like all the nominations are in.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Time to commence with the voting!! Here is my proposal for going about doing this.
1. We find a volunteer who was not nominated to gather the votes
Brent? We all trust him and he some how escaped being nominated?
2. Everybody gets 5 votes. Voting is open to any interested parties.
Interested parties very good, so we send out an "email" asking people to send their picks to Brent?
3. We choose the 7 people who received the most votes.
Seems like a large number to get work done, I know the geotools like 70% to get anything done, so you would
need 5 people to attend IRC meetings? Yeah okay that can work...What do people think?
Rock on
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Um, I think we need
0. Make sure that all nominated parties accept their nomination.
We should define what the time commitment should be.
I think it can be pretty minimal, it's only necessary for the PSC to vote on big decisions, like when to transition things to trunk, when to roll in work from branches, ect.
I think it also might be good to set up clear guidelines of what is in the domain of the PSC and what is not.
I'm still not sure that I like the high turnover PSC. It might be nicer to just have a more informal 'active committers' group that can make day to day decisions, and the PSC really just comes in on the big decisions. Perhaps we could have 'permanent members' and temporary members, so that there is a relatively consistent group making long term decisions, but those who come aboard GeoServer for a shorter time but with a major commitment can help out in decision making.
Temporary PSC would be expected to attend every meeting, and if they go away for a bit of time then they lose their PSC. Permanent might get drawn away sometimes for a bit longer, but they've shown a major commitment over the years in the past, and can be counted on to return, and to give up their spot if they just haven't returned. And they can be expected to at least chime in on a vote if poked. In time we might get more a larger permanent PSC, as more organizations commit heavily to GeoServer.
Sorry to bring up more to debate, but I want this PSC to be formed right, and it feels a bit like we're just rushing in to it since other projects do it. It could be good to look in to more formal RFC's like MapServer does for major decisions, so that the decision making can be easily observed, see: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc Plone also has a nice structure: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/psc_improvements_listing
Chris
Brent Owens wrote:
I can collect the votes, no problem.
Brent Owens
(The Open Planning Project)Jody Garnett wrote:
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like all the nominations are in.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Time to commence with the voting!! Here is my proposal for going about doing this.
1. We find a volunteer who was not nominated to gather the votes
Brent? We all trust him and he some how escaped being nominated?
2. Everybody gets 5 votes. Voting is open to any interested parties.
Interested parties very good, so we send out an "email" asking people to send their picks to Brent?
3. We choose the 7 people who received the most votes.
Seems like a large number to get work done, I know the geotools like 70% to get anything done, so you would
need 5 people to attend IRC meetings? Yeah okay that can work...What do people think?
Rock on
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
--
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
This is great. This was started on the the following page, but is in the very early stages and incomplete.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Chris, Is there any chance you would be willing to summarize your email into major responsiblilties and update the page? Then we can bring them up for discussion at tommorow nights IRC meeting.
The meeting will also give nominees the opportunity to decline the PMC membership if they choose, which of course they can also do via email or updating pdating the above page.
-Justin
Chris Holmes wrote:
Um, I think we need
0. Make sure that all nominated parties accept their nomination.
We should define what the time commitment should be.
I think it can be pretty minimal, it's only necessary for the PSC to vote on big decisions, like when to transition things to trunk, when to roll in work from branches, ect.
I think it also might be good to set up clear guidelines of what is in the domain of the PSC and what is not.
I'm still not sure that I like the high turnover PSC. It might be nicer to just have a more informal 'active committers' group that can make day to day decisions, and the PSC really just comes in on the big decisions. Perhaps we could have 'permanent members' and temporary members, so that there is a relatively consistent group making long term decisions, but those who come aboard GeoServer for a shorter time but with a major commitment can help out in decision making.
Temporary PSC would be expected to attend every meeting, and if they go away for a bit of time then they lose their PSC. Permanent might get drawn away sometimes for a bit longer, but they've shown a major commitment over the years in the past, and can be counted on to return, and to give up their spot if they just haven't returned. And they can be expected to at least chime in on a vote if poked. In time we might get more a larger permanent PSC, as more organizations commit heavily to GeoServer.
Sorry to bring up more to debate, but I want this PSC to be formed right, and it feels a bit like we're just rushing in to it since other projects do it. It could be good to look in to more formal RFC's like MapServer does for major decisions, so that the decision making can be easily observed, see: http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc Plone also has a nice structure: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/psc_improvements_listing
Chris
Brent Owens wrote:
I can collect the votes, no problem.
Brent Owens
(The Open Planning Project)Jody Garnett wrote:
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like all the nominations are in.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOSDEV/0+Project+Steering+Committee
Time to commence with the voting!! Here is my proposal for going about doing this.
1. We find a volunteer who was not nominated to gather the votes
Brent? We all trust him and he some how escaped being nominated?
2. Everybody gets 5 votes. Voting is open to any interested parties.
Interested parties very good, so we send out an "email" asking people to send their picks to Brent?
3. We choose the 7 people who received the most votes.
Seems like a large number to get work done, I know the geotools like 70% to get anything done, so you would
need 5 people to attend IRC meetings? Yeah okay that can work...What do people think?
Rock on
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
jdeolive@anonymised.com
Chris Holmes wrote:
Um, I think we need
0. Make sure that all nominated parties accept their nomination.
We should define what the time commitment should be.
I think it can be pretty minimal, it's only necessary for the PSC to vote on big decisions, like when to transition things to trunk, when to roll in work from branches, ect.
I think it also might be good to set up clear guidelines of what is in the domain of the PSC and what is not.
I'm still not sure that I like the high turnover PSC.
Can we just change it to turn over is expected? I am trying to avoid the scenario we have in geotools where you have been trying to ween us off your expert advice for years without success.
consistent group making long term decisions, but those who come aboard GeoServer for a shorter time but with a major commitment can help out in decision making.
Often we find our self trusting Justin of geotools decisions even though he is not PMC right now. Same thing with simboss for GC work. Hopefully they can take a more active roll as their work comes back to trunk.
Permanent might get drawn away sometimes for a bit longer, but they've shown a major commitment over the years in the past, and can be counted on to return, and to give up their spot if they just haven't returned. And they can be expected to at least chime in on a vote if poked. In time we might get more a larger permanent PSC, as more organizations commit heavily to GeoServer.
I would be happy with our very small list of the committed committers doing the day to day voting, and we just lean on the PSC for steering the project through things like OGC specifications, interaction with other projects (informal and formal) and all that kind of thing?
Sorry to bring up more to debate, but I want this PSC to be formed right, and it feels a bit like we're just rushing in to it since other projects do it. It could be good to look in to more formal RFC's like MapServer does for major decisions, so that the decision making can be easily observed, see: Request for Comments — MapServer 8.2.2 documentation Plone also has a nice structure: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/psc_improvements_listing
Chris can you prep something for tomorrows geoserver meeting? Not sure if morning or evening is most appropriate?
Cheers,
Jody
