Following on from a PSC discussion, ... I think it is right to discuss company/individual composition of the PSC.
As projects like Openlayers grow, there is are changing dynamics regarding how decisions are made, because developer composition moves from volunteers (who are answerable to themselves) to paid employees (who are answerable to their employers). Initially it makes sense that PSC membership is made up of individuals. However, as developer mix increases to include more paid employees, I think we need to consider company representation on the PSC. I don't think others would disagree that the PSC is stronger when it has representation from a diverse group of developers and organisations. So I think that when we propose someone for PSC membership we should consider where they work, and the proportional representation of companies on the PSC. In other PSCs, I have noticed developers from the same company have a tendency to vote the same way. This is natural and understandable. The developers are usually working on the same project and have the same driving priorities and needs. I'd also like to bring out into open discussion the question of who we have on the committee, what are the expectations of them. Whether we only want technical people on the committee or whether non-coders should be included too. I'd like to question the value of my involvement. I haven't written Openlayers code for a year or two now, but do manage developers who use Openlayers and occasionally contribute patches. I'm comfortable with my role, providing rants like these to the email list, but won't be offended if people suggest it would be time for me to retire. -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Systems Architect Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 Think Globally, Fix Locally Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source http://www.lisasoft.com _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
