Proposal to change the PSC
|
|
Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
|
Dear PSC members,
I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to day work of the PSC. Looking forward to your votes, greetings, Jeroen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
Monteduro, Patrizia (NRCE)
|
Ok for me +1
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Jeroen Ticheler [mailto:[hidden email]] Inviato: gio 25/06/2009 15.30 A: Devel [hidden email] Cc: Oggetto: [GeoNetwork-devel] Proposal to change the PSC Dear PSC members, I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to day work of the PSC. Looking forward to your votes, greetings, Jeroen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
Emanuele Tajariol
|
In reply to this post
by Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
Hello,
back from holidays, these are bad news for me. > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. -0 for me. I have not been committing new code in the repo for a while, but I think this is not a good reason for letting me (and Andrea) out; please also consider that we are not the only PSC members in this situation. I'm also working on other OGC related projects, some of them also closely related with GN, and I consider this as an involvement in geonetwork as well. With full loyalty with a voting process concerning myself, I am not vetoing it, asking for other's PSC votes. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. -0 The PSC for a project so widespread as GN should not be shrunk so much. Ciao, Emanuele Alle 15:30:54 di giovedì 25 giugno 2009, Jeroen Ticheler ha scritto: > Dear PSC members, > I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more > effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members > of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: > > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. > > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. > > Looking forward to your votes, greetings, > Jeroen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- _______________________________________________ > GeoNetwork-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel > GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at > http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
Heikki Doeleman
|
Hello,
some remarks and questions : * [slightly off-topic] What is the actual role and function of the "Advisory Board", as distinct from the PSC ? On http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/PSC it says "The AB meets on a yearly basis to discuss the requirements of the participating agencies and to define a work plan for the following year", etc. Does this really happen ? I have found no evidence of this in the GeoNetwork mailing lists. * I haven't seen a single instance where a PSC member actually voted against a proposal. This means that either the desired consensus is reached before voting, through channels not easily identified as being under the PSC flag, or that there have not been any proposals sufficiently out-of-the-trodden-path to merit anyone's "no" vote. The former would mean this is an opaque process; the latter might mean we should be more active in our imaginations. I don't mean we should start any flame-wars, but some more debate, with participants holding opposing views etc. could benefit the software. As for the two proposals in the original email : 1 - I agree with Emanuele that the reasoning behind it seems arbitrary 2 - I have no opinion on what is the ideal size of the PSC. Though seeing the lack of any "no" votes as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem that the current size is an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness. However I disagree with the reasoning that possible new members should be trunk committers with a "long involvement" (whatever that may mean). On the contrary, having only people with ancient involvement on board could be an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness, in my opinion. I'd say it would be good to include some new blood into the PSC -- for example any one of the ESA project members, who supposedly laid the foundations for the future architectural direction for GeoNetwork. Or even someone who is not a GeoNetwork developer at all, but who has a broad knowledge of current technologies that may be relevant to the GeoNetwork software. kind regards heikki doeleman On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Emanuele Tajariol <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
SimonPigot
|
This issue only came up very briefly at Bolsena and obviously didn't get a full discussion :-)
Here's how I see it: Steering committee (PSC) = people actively involved in determining the direction that GeoNetwork develops. For me active development means developing GeoNetwork or running a team of people who are developing GeoNetwork with a committment to/history of providing these developments to the trunk and history of active participation in the mailing lists. PSC doesn't need to have all the ideas for future development of GeoNetwork as these can and should come from as many people as possible. Advisory committee = people who are not members of the PSC but who can provide advice on directions and decisions taken by the PSC. Perfect people for this group are those involved in groups like the OGC that have or develop specifications or code that are key to GeoNetwork and former members of the PSC whose experience and knowledge of GeoNetwork is essential to the PSC and should be available. I think the current role/make up of the advisory committee seems to stem from FAO days and perhaps needs to change along the lines I'm suggesting above. So perhaps if we agree on the above then we could amend the original proposals to: 1. Ask Emanuele and Andrea (and perhaps Archie) to assess their position with respect to the PSC and consider moving to the advisory committee if they are no longer actively developing GeoNetwork. That way we can keep their experience and input to GeoNetwork available to the PSC. 2. Ask the GeoNetwork ebRIM/ESA team to nominate a developer for the PSC for the reasons given in Heikki's email. What do others think? Cheers, Simon ________________________________ From: heikki [[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 9:23 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [GeoNetwork-devel] Proposal to change the PSC Hello, some remarks and questions : * [slightly off-topic] What is the actual role and function of the "Advisory Board", as distinct from the PSC ? On http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/PSC it says "The AB meets on a yearly basis to discuss the requirements of the participating agencies and to define a work plan for the following year", etc. Does this really happen ? I have found no evidence of this in the GeoNetwork mailing lists. * I haven't seen a single instance where a PSC member actually voted against a proposal. This means that either the desired consensus is reached before voting, through channels not easily identified as being under the PSC flag, or that there have not been any proposals sufficiently out-of-the-trodden-path to merit anyone's "no" vote. The former would mean this is an opaque process; the latter might mean we should be more active in our imaginations. I don't mean we should start any flame-wars, but some more debate, with participants holding opposing views etc. could benefit the software. As for the two proposals in the original email : 1 - I agree with Emanuele that the reasoning behind it seems arbitrary 2 - I have no opinion on what is the ideal size of the PSC. Though seeing the lack of any "no" votes as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem that the current size is an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness. However I disagree with the reasoning that possible new members should be trunk committers with a "long involvement" (whatever that may mean). On the contrary, having only people with ancient involvement on board could be an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness, in my opinion. I'd say it would be good to include some new blood into the PSC -- for example any one of the ESA project members, who supposedly laid the foundations for the future architectural direction for GeoNetwork. Or even someone who is not a GeoNetwork developer at all, but who has a broad knowledge of current technologies that may be relevant to the GeoNetwork software. kind regards heikki doeleman On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Emanuele Tajariol <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Hello, back from holidays, these are bad news for me. > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. -0 for me. I have not been committing new code in the repo for a while, but I think this is not a good reason for letting me (and Andrea) out; please also consider that we are not the only PSC members in this situation. I'm also working on other OGC related projects, some of them also closely related with GN, and I consider this as an involvement in geonetwork as well. With full loyalty with a voting process concerning myself, I am not vetoing it, asking for other's PSC votes. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. -0 The PSC for a project so widespread as GN should not be shrunk so much. Ciao, Emanuele Alle 15:30:54 di giovedì 25 giugno 2009, Jeroen Ticheler ha scritto: > Dear PSC members, > I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more > effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members > of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: > > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. > > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. > > Looking forward to your votes, greetings, > Jeroen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- _______________________________________________ > GeoNetwork-devel mailing list > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel > GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at > http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
Andrea Carboni-2
|
In reply to this post
by Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
Hi all,
here are my considerations: > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. -0 for me, leaving the decision to others. Anyway, I agree with Simon and maybe it is better to move myself to the Advisory Board. I would leave Emanuele inside the PSC. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. -1 for me. 5 members for the PSC is not enough for me: decisions could be easily biased. GN has now an active community worldwide, with several active developers. I would let some of them in the PSC, as Simon suggested, maybe increasing the PSC size to 9 members. Cheers, Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
|
Andrea Carboni-2
|
In reply to this post
by Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
Hi all,
here are my considerations: > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. -0 for me, leaving the decision to others. Anyway, I agree with Simon and maybe it is better to move myself to the Advisory Board. I would leave Emanuele inside the PSC. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. -1 for me. 5 members for the PSC is not enough for me: decisions could be easily biased. GN has now an active community worldwide, with several active developers. I would let some of them in the PSC, as Simon suggested, maybe increasing the PSC size to 9 members. Cheers, Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
|
Andrea Carboni-2
|
In reply to this post
by Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
Hi all,
here are my considerations: > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. -0 for me, leaving the decision to others. Anyway, I agree with Simon and maybe it is better to move myself to the Advisory Board. I would leave Emanuele inside the PSC. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. -1 for me. 5 members for the PSC is not enough for me: decisions could be easily biased. GN has now an active community worldwide, with several active developers. I would let some of them in the PSC, as Simon suggested, maybe increasing the PSC size to 9 members. Cheers, Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
Archie Warnock
|
In reply to this post
by Jeroen Ticheler - GeoCat
Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
> Dear PSC members, > I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more > effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members > of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: > > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. > > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. Cheers all! +0 for me Sorry for the delay. I've been out of town (and offline) for a while with a family emergency. I'm back to work now. I generally agree with Andrea's suggestion, and would be more than happy to join him on the Advisory Committee to make room for other active developers on the PSC. While I'm available to be involved in assessing the CSW capabilities for upcoming releases (and I'm delighted to see Mathieu working on it), I'm not currently actively involved in development. I'd prefer to see a small PSC of active developers and a larger group on the Advisory committee to evaluate changes and provide experience-based input. The small size of the PSC doesn't really concern me because these are the people actually implementing changes they propose. Perhaps some level of approval from the advisory committee would be desirable, but the mechanics for how that would work don't spring immediately to mind. -- Archie -- Archie Warnock [hidden email] -- A/WWW Enterprises www.awcubed.com -- As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
|
Monteduro, Patrizia (NRCE)
|
In reply to this post
by SimonPigot
Hello,
I agree with Simon's point 1 and 2, and with his new formulation of the proposals. Personally I think the PSC members, as such, should actively show up their interest and commitment in the software development, otherwise they woud risk to slow down its progress. In the case they are actually doing something in the back ground, then it's in the whole community interest to keep informed the others on their renovated commitment. That is why I voted +1 to the original proposals. I mean, my vote was of course nothing against Emanuele and Andrea. I was conscious that I could be the next one to be asked to step down from the PSC, due to my scarse recent participation :-( But, I also agree with Heikki, in the sense that we would need some more debate, either among PSC members or Advisory board paricipants, if we want to deliberate something so important like the criteria for reducing the PSC members. Anyway, I take this discussion as a good start to move staff forward a more active partecipation in the GeoNetwork opensource issues. Cheers, Patrizia -----Messaggio originale----- Da: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Inviato: lun 29/06/2009 13.54 A: [hidden email]; [hidden email] Cc: Oggetto: Re: [GeoNetwork-devel] Proposal to change the PSC This issue only came up very briefly at Bolsena and obviously didn't get a full discussion :-) Here's how I see it: Steering committee (PSC) = people actively involved in determining the direction that GeoNetwork develops. For me active development means developing GeoNetwork or running a team of people who are developing GeoNetwork with a committment to/history of providing these developments to the trunk and history of active participation in the mailing lists. PSC doesn't need to have all the ideas for future development of GeoNetwork as these can and should come from as many people as possible. Advisory committee = people who are not members of the PSC but who can provide advice on directions and decisions taken by the PSC. Perfect people for this group are those involved in groups like the OGC that have or develop specifications or code that are key to GeoNetwork and former members of the PSC whose experience and knowledge of GeoNetwork is essential to the PSC and should be available. I think the current role/make up of the advisory committee seems to stem from FAO days and perhaps needs to change along the lines I'm suggesting above. So perhaps if we agree on the above then we could amend the original proposals to: 1. Ask Emanuele and Andrea (and perhaps Archie) to assess their position with respect to the PSC and consider moving to the advisory committee if they are no longer actively developing GeoNetwork. That way we can keep their experience and input to GeoNetwork available to the PSC. 2. Ask the GeoNetwork ebRIM/ESA team to nominate a developer for the PSC for the reasons given in Heikki's email. What do others think? Cheers, Simon ________________________________ From: heikki [[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 9:23 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [GeoNetwork-devel] Proposal to change the PSC Hello, some remarks and questions : * [slightly off-topic] What is the actual role and function of the "Advisory Board", as distinct from the PSC ? On http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/PSC it says "The AB meets on a yearly basis to discuss the requirements of the participating agencies and to define a work plan for the following year", etc. Does this really happen ? I have found no evidence of this in the GeoNetwork mailing lists. * I haven't seen a single instance where a PSC member actually voted against a proposal. This means that either the desired consensus is reached before voting, through channels not easily identified as being under the PSC flag, or that there have not been any proposals sufficiently out-of-the-trodden-path to merit anyone's "no" vote. The former would mean this is an opaque process; the latter might mean we should be more active in our imaginations. I don't mean we should start any flame-wars, but some more debate, with participants holding opposing views etc. could benefit the software. As for the two proposals in the original email : 1 - I agree with Emanuele that the reasoning behind it seems arbitrary 2 - I have no opinion on what is the ideal size of the PSC. Though seeing the lack of any "no" votes as I mentioned above, it doesn't seem that the current size is an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness. However I disagree with the reasoning that possible new members should be trunk committers with a "long involvement" (whatever that may mean). On the contrary, having only people with ancient involvement on board could be an impediment to the PSC's effectiveness, in my opinion. I'd say it would be good to include some new blood into the PSC -- for example any one of the ESA project members, who supposedly laid the foundations for the future architectural direction for GeoNetwork. Or even someone who is not a GeoNetwork developer at all, but who has a broad knowledge of current technologies that may be relevant to the GeoNetwork software. kind regards heikki doeleman On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Emanuele Tajariol <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Hello, back from holidays, these are bad news for me. > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. -0 for me. I have not been committing new code in the repo for a while, but I think this is not a good reason for letting me (and Andrea) out; please also consider that we are not the only PSC members in this situation. I'm also working on other OGC related projects, some of them also closely related with GN, and I consider this as an involvement in geonetwork as well. With full loyalty with a voting process concerning myself, I am not vetoing it, asking for other's PSC votes. > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. -0 The PSC for a project so widespread as GN should not be shrunk so much. Ciao, Emanuele Alle 15:30:54 di giovedì 25 giugno 2009, Jeroen Ticheler ha scritto: > Dear PSC members, > I would like to propose a change to the PSC to ensure the PSC is more > effective in taking decisions and better reflects the active members > of the project. Therefor I propose the following two changes: > > 1- I propose for Andrea Carboni and Emanuele Tajariol to step down > from the PSC. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the > project in the past. Their involvement however has ceased for more > than a year now, so I think this would be a logical step. > > 2- I propose to change the number of people on the PSC from 7 down to > 5. Although we have a fair amount of active developers, the project > has a relatively small number of active developers that commit to > trunk and have had a long term involvement. Also this proposal has the > objective of making the PSC more effective and involved in the day to > day work of the PSC. > > Looking forward to your votes, greetings, > Jeroen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- _______________________________________________ > GeoNetwork-devel mailing list > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email] rge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel > GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at > http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email] rge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ GeoNetwork-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-devel GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
