hi, the 1/3 idea was good but IMHO difficult to put in practice because it is not clear how to start it. moreover, I don't think that dissolving the whole PSC would lead to a new one composed by only new members, there will be for sure among the new elected some old members. Thus Im in favor of dissolving it now. Perhaps old members could serve as "honorary members" anyway, just to offer support in the event of a completely new team. Thank you for pushing this forward Markus.
Best, Margherita On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 at 16:45, Markus Neteler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Markus Neteler <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Michael Barton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> My 2 cents. While that might seem like a good idea for now, given that > there has been no change to the PSC for a number of years, I'm not > convinced that is the best strategy for the long term. For a body like > this, it is very important to have continuity of technical knowledge, but > more importantly of project culture, ethos, and history. That is best > achieved by staggered elections in which some portion (third, half) of the > PCS is elected every couple years. It sounds like we need to replace about > 1/3 of the PCS now due to some of the group moving on. So that would be a > convenient number to get. > > > > This is how the OSGeo board renewal works. > > > > Since we are currently rather stuck with a lot of inactive members I > > suggest to proceed and renew asap. > > [ ... 12 days later ...] > > The lack of feedback supports my idea to suggest to dissolve the current > PSC :-) > > Best > Markus > _______________________________________________ > grass-psc mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
