[OSGeo-Discuss] Trac Spam filter plugin installed

[Sandro Santilli]

I've installed TracSpamPlugin globally and prepared every instance
so that project trac admins can enable the plugin autonomously
(required a database structure upgrade for spam management tables).

See https://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/SpamFilter for usage instructions.

--strk; 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Peter,
Could you please answer Even and Johan's question.

I'm happy to use another term for the governance model.
"Does one person have ultimate control over the project? Or does 
ultimate control lie with a committee, possibly with a tie breaker vote 
designated to one person or one role (eg chair)?"


Warm regards, Cameron

On 5/05/2016 3:29 am, Even Rouault wrote:

Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit :

HI Cameron,

first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has
nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite,
BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)

Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the sentence
that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then
Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie
in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter breaks
the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased in
a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a
named individual).

I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question but this hasn't
been answered clearly.

Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could gain in clarity by
defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...) As an example of
simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the plain language
used): https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc /
http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html /
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ).


If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept:
rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_
consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it comes
from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.

It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.

I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
scientific ethics ...or not.

best,
Peter

On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

Hi Peter,
Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent
dictator" governance model?

Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to
your description below.
There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone
who founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the
project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering
Committee.

As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community
involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition
of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving
extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect
and trust of their community by sharing project governance.

If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there
is little risk you will loose your current influence on the project. Its
also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself
and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you
are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little
impact on the final result.

So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.

If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree
with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members
to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:

interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!

True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary, we
are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much
overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate
responsibility; in practice that means that we openly discuss pros and
cons with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I
have not received any complaint over the years that anybody would not
get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean back
(metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the
experienced developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.

We regularly try to involve the community in such design and
implementation discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but
feedback invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when
looking at the download figures at www.rasdaman.org.

It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly
commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the
Patch Manager?

Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by
qualification. Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily
complex; large and experienced companies like Oracle, 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Paolo Corti]

>
> I tend to agree with Patrick's position. I think what matters in the end is
> the license the code is released, as long as forking is allowed, whether is
> a committee or a single person taking decisions about developing may lead or
> may not to a successful project according to several factors, one being the
> leader, but also the quality of the product, the competitors on the market
> and so on.. there are so many variables involved, that excluding a project
> only based on that seems to me a little shortsighted (no offense intended).
> Also, wording is important! no one loves dictators!! But everyone love
> people who take responsibility and accountability for their job.
>

Totally agree with this. Licenses is what really matters in my opinion as well.
And I agree wording could be improved, but now this is a long term
definition and it needs to be accepted.
Also note that most of OSGeo projects would not exists if they were
not using underlying software from projects generated with a BDFL
model.
p



-- 
Paolo Corti
Geospatial software developer
web: http://www.paolocorti.net
twitter: @capooti
skype: capooti
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Landon Blake]

Evan wrote: "Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it
seems the sentence
that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then
Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie
in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter
breaks
the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased
in
a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a
named individual)."

Excellent comment and great solution.

Landon

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Even Rouault 
wrote:

> Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit :
> > HI Cameron,
> >
> > first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has
> > nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite,
> > BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)
>
> Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the
> sentence
> that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached
> then
> Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a
> tie
> in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter
> breaks
> the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased
> in
> a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a
> named individual).
>
> I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question but this
> hasn't
> been answered clearly.
>
> Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could gain in clarity by
> defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...) As an
> example of
> simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the plain
> language
> used): https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc /
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html /
> http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ).
>
> >
> > If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept:
> > rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_
> > consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it
> comes
> > from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.
> >
> > It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.
> >
> > I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
> > scientific ethics ...or not.
> >
> > best,
> > Peter
> >
> > On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > > Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current
> "benevolent
> > > dictator" governance model?
> > >
> > > Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to
> > > your description below.
> > > There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone
> > > who founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the
> > > project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
> > > This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project
> Steering
> > > Committee.
> > >
> > > As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community
> > > involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition
> > > of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving
> > > extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show
> respect
> > > and trust of their community by sharing project governance.
> > >
> > > If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there
> > > is little risk you will loose your current influence on the project.
> Its
> > > also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself
> > > and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you
> > > are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little
> > > impact on the final result.
> > >
> > > So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.
> > >
> > > If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree
> > > with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members
> > > to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
> > >
> > > Warm regards, Cameron
> > >
> > > On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
> > >> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
> > >>
> > >> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary,
> we
> > >> are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
> > >> opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much
> > >> overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate
> > >> responsibility; in practice that means that we openly discuss pros and
> > >> cons with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I
> > >> have not received any complaint over the years that anybody would not
> > >> get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean back
> > >> (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the
> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Even Rouault]

Le mercredi 04 mai 2016 18:34:27, Peter Baumann a écrit :
> HI Cameron,
> 
> first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has
> nothing at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite,
> BTW - "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)

Actually reading http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance it seems the sentence 
that cause trouble is "Should such consent exceptionally not be reached then 
Peter Baumann has a casting vote." Does that mean that in case there's a tie 
in voting (which cannot happen with a 3 member PSC as currently), Peter breaks 
the tie ? If so, that seems acceptable to me (should probably be rephrased in 
a more neutral way to say to designate the chair of the PSC rather than a 
named individual).

I actually see that Johan Van de Wauw asked the same question but this hasn't 
been answered clearly.

Perhaps http://www.rasdaman.org/wiki/Governance could gain in clarity by 
defining precise voting rules (which majority, delays, etc...) As an example of 
simple rules (not necessarily to follow them, but to show the plain language 
used): https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc / 
http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1.html / 
http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/developer/policies/psc.html ).

> 
> If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept:
> rasdaman has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_
> consensus orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it comes
> from - this is at the heart of our scientific progress.
> 
> It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.
> 
> I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
> scientific ethics ...or not.
> 
> best,
> Peter
> 
> On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent
> > dictator" governance model?
> > 
> > Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to
> > your description below.
> > There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone
> > who founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the
> > project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
> > This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering
> > Committee.
> > 
> > As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community
> > involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition
> > of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving
> > extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect
> > and trust of their community by sharing project governance.
> > 
> > If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there
> > is little risk you will loose your current influence on the project. Its
> > also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself
> > and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you
> > are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little
> > impact on the final result.
> > 
> > So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.
> > 
> > If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree
> > with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members
> > to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
> > 
> > Warm regards, Cameron
> > 
> > On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
> >> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
> >> 
> >> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary, we
> >> are most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
> >> opportunities for process improvements. Personally, I am so much
> >> overloaded that I enjoy handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate
> >> responsibility; in practice that means that we openly discuss pros and
> >> cons with myself being "primus inter pares" (first among equals). I
> >> have not received any complaint over the years that anybody would not
> >> get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean back
> >> (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the
> >> experienced developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.
> >> 
> >> We regularly try to involve the community in such design and
> >> implementation discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but
> >> feedback invariably was minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when
> >> looking at the download figures at www.rasdaman.org.
> >> 
> >> It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly
> >> commenting and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the
> >> Patch Manager?
> >> 
> >> Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by
> >> qualification. Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily
> >> complex; large and experienced companies like Oracle, Teradata, and
> >> ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman, and failed. 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Ian Turton]

>From the discussion so far it sounds as all that is needed is for Rasdaman
to designate it's collection of committers as a PSC and carry on with out
all this fuss.
There is no restriction on how many people you have on your PSC if you can
manage them. And it is worth noting that the current PSCs don't spend all
their time rejecting PRs - mostly we just review and check that we have
committer agreements from people.

Ian

On 4 May 2016 at 17:34, Peter Baumann 
wrote:

> HI Cameron,
>
> first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has
> nothing
> at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite, BTW -
> "dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)
>
> If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept:
> rasdaman
> has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_ consensus
> orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it comes from -
> this is
> at the heart of our scientific progress.
>
> It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.
>
> I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
> scientific ethics ...or not.
>
> best,
> Peter
>
>
> On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent
> > dictator" governance model?
> >
> > Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to
> your
> > description below.
> > There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone
> who
> > founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the project,
> and
> > their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
> > This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering
> > Committee.
> >
> > As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community
> involves
> > a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition of team
> > members. Community members typically show respect by giving extra weight
> to
> > the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect and trust of
> their
> > community by sharing project governance.
> >
> > If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there
> is
> > little risk you will loose your current influence on the project. Its
> also
> > unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself and
> the
> > community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you are head
> of the
> > official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little impact on the final
> result.
> >
> > So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.
> >
> > If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree
> with
> > Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members to
> vote, as
> > it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
> >
> > Warm regards, Cameron
> >
> > On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
> >> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
> >>
> >> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary,
> we are
> >> most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about
> opportunities
> >> for process improvements. Personally, I am so much overloaded that I
> enjoy
> >> handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate responsibility; in
> practice that
> >> means that we openly discuss pros and cons with myself being "primus
> inter
> >> pares" (first among equals). I have not received any complaint over the
> years
> >> that anybody would not get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need
> to lean
> >> back (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the
> experienced
> >> developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.
> >>
> >> We regularly try to involve the community in such design and
> implementation
> >> discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but feedback
> invariably was
> >> minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when looking at the download
> figures at
> >> www.rasdaman.org.
> >>
> >> It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly
> commenting
> >> and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the Patch
> Manager?
> >>
> >> Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by
> qualification.
> >> Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily complex; large and
> experienced
> >> companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman,
> and
> >> failed. Therefore, it unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to
> immerse to
> >> a degree that allows making suggestions that are fully backed by the
> team. That
> >> said, we do not attach maturity labels to coders ;-), rather the
> technical merit
> >> of each individual contribution is weighted carefully.
> >>
> >> Another constraint, of course, are project considerations- there is a
> contract
> >> behind where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else expects
> fulfilment.
> >>
> >> Bottom line, the atmosphere in 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Peter Baumann]

HI Cameron,

first, as this word has been used too often now, the current model has nothing
at all to do with dictatorship. What is the suggested opposite, BTW -
"dictatorship of majorities"? ;-)

If it would at least be called a "technocracy", that I could accept: rasdaman
has always been driven by purely scientific elaboration _and_ consensus
orientation and respect. Genius rules, regardless where it comes from - this is
at the heart of our scientific progress.

It is the fundamental freedom of science that is at stake here.

I guess that OSGeo needs to decide whether it can accept a model based on
scientific ethics ...or not.

best,
Peter


On 05/04/2016 02:01 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent
> dictator" governance model?
>
> Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to your
> description below.
> There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone who
> founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the project, and
> their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
> This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering
> Committee.
>
> As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community involves
> a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition of team
> members. Community members typically show respect by giving extra weight to
> the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect and trust of their
> community by sharing project governance.
>
> If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there is
> little risk you will loose your current influence on the project. Its also
> unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself and the
> community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you are head of the
> official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little impact on the final result.
>
> So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.
>
> If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree with
> Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members to vote, as
> it would be a new direction for OSGeo.
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
> On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:
>> interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!
>>
>> True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary, we are
>> most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about 
>> opportunities
>> for process improvements. Personally, I am so much overloaded that I enjoy
>> handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate responsibility; in practice 
>> that
>> means that we openly discuss pros and cons with myself being "primus inter
>> pares" (first among equals). I have not received any complaint over the years
>> that anybody would not get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean
>> back (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the 
>> experienced
>> developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.
>>
>> We regularly try to involve the community in such design and implementation
>> discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but feedback invariably was
>> minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when looking at the download figures 
>> at
>> www.rasdaman.org.
>>
>> It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly 
>> commenting
>> and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the Patch Manager?
>>
>> Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by qualification.
>> Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily complex; large and 
>> experienced
>> companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman, and
>> failed. Therefore, it unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to immerse 
>> to
>> a degree that allows making suggestions that are fully backed by the team. 
>> That
>> said, we do not attach maturity labels to coders ;-), rather the technical 
>> merit
>> of each individual contribution is weighted carefully.
>>
>> Another constraint, of course, are project considerations- there is a 
>> contract
>> behind where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else expects 
>> fulfilment.
>>
>> Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly cooperative and
>> consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last resort. Someone has
>> questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite adequate; I like the
>> diplomacy aspect raised.
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
>>> I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
>>> http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel
>>>
>>> It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:
>>>
 In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is less about
 dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure
 that, as the project expands, the right people are given 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Incubator] Should OSGeo accept "benevolent dictator" projects into OSGeo?

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Peter,
Are you open to considering relinquishing rasdaman's current "benevolent 
dictator" governance model?


Many (most?) OSGeo projects that I'm aware of are managed similarly to 
your description below.
There is usually a sage or two amongst the community, typically someone 
who founded the project. The sage(s)  have more experience with the 
project, and their opinion holds greater weight amongst the community.
This informal relationship continues even with a formal Project Steering 
Committee.


As you would understand, building a successful Open Source community 
involves a significant amount of mutual respect, and mutual recognition 
of team members. Community members typically show respect by giving 
extra weight to the opinion of founders, and founders often show respect 
and trust of their community by sharing project governance.


If you are a good open source leader, and it appears you must be, there 
is little risk you will loose your current influence on the project. Its 
also unlikely there will be an unresolvable difference between yourself 
and the community. But if there is, and the project forks, whether you 
are head of the official PSC or the new rouge PSC will have little 
impact on the final result.


So please do consider adopting a shared PSC governance model.

If you do wish to go ahead with a "benevolent dictator" model, I agree 
with Andrea's that we should put the question to OSGeo Charter members 
to vote, as it would be a new direction for OSGeo.


Warm regards, Cameron

On 3/05/2016 5:46 pm, Peter Baumann wrote:

interesting discussion, with valuable thoughts!

True, micro management is not the case in rasdaman - on the contrary, we are
most happy about helping hands, and are constantly thinking about opportunities
for process improvements. Personally, I am so much overloaded that I enjoy
handing over tasks, and yes: with appropriate responsibility; in practice that
means that we openly discuss pros and cons with myself being "primus inter
pares" (first among equals). I have not received any complaint over the years
that anybody would not get heard appropriately. Regularly I just need to lean
back (metaphorically) and await the outcome of the discussion of the experienced
developers, and add my nodding to the group consensus.

We regularly try to involve the community in such design and implementation
discussions (and I am urging devers to do that), but feedback invariably was
minimal. Which I see as a sign of trust when looking at the download figures at
www.rasdaman.org.

It may be worth noting that we have installed mechanisms for openly commenting
and voting on patches; ever clicked on the Review URL in the Patch Manager?

Actually, it is more about deciding not by election, but by qualification.
Concepts and code of rasdaman are extraordinarily complex; large and experienced
companies like Oracle, Teradata, and ESRI have tried to copy rasdaman, and
failed. Therefore, it unfortunately takes patience for a newcomer to immerse to
a degree that allows making suggestions that are fully backed by the team. That
said, we do not attach maturity labels to coders ;-), rather the technical merit
of each individual contribution is weighted carefully.

Another constraint, of course, are project considerations- there is a contract
behind where ESA, the European Commission, or whoever-else expects fulfilment.

Bottom line, the atmosphere in rasdaman is highly cooperative and
consensus-based, I just reserve jumping in as a last resort. Someone has
questioned the term used in this discussion as not quite adequate; I like the
diplomacy aspect raised.

-Peter


On 05/03/2016 01:54 AM, Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:

I found this nice description of the benevolent dictator governance:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel

It's a nice read, but I want to highlight this part:


In many ways, the role of the benevolent dictator is less about
dictatorship and more about diplomacy. The key is to ensure
that, as the project expands, the right people are given influence
over it and the community rallies behind the vision of the project
lead.

Another good one from (linked from the above):
http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/social-infrastructure.html#benevolent-dictator-qualifications



they let things work themselves out through discussion and
experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those
discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to
an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is clear that
no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone
to guide the decision so that development can move on, does she put
her foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be."


 From my (really) naive point of view, the "benevolent dictatorship" is a
do-ocracy were the committers get the right, or influence, to lead parts of
the projects and where the "dictator" is acountable of its decision to the

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Foss4G-Europe 2017

[till . adams]

yes Sir!


Am 2016-05-04 11:32, schrieb Jachym Cepicky:

Hi Till,

conference committee established - please join in

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe [5]

st 4. 5. 2016 v 9:51 odesílatel  napsal:


Hi Jachym,

great to go forward with this. Id say: Will not be in Bonn ;-)

We should establish kind of Conference Committee, that at least
assesses the proposals and does the voting.

How was the procedure up now?

Till

Am 2016-05-04 08:56, schrieb Jachym Cepicky:
> Hi,
>
> yes, its time to start with this. Shall we call for venue? Any
> proposals already?
>
> Ive created wiki page for this 
>
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017 [1] [1]
>
> Steps we need to do:
>
> 1 - Call for venue
> 2 - Select best venue
> 3 - Make conference
>
> Venue requirements: 
>
> 500 participants
> more unconference style event?
> workshops
> code sprints
>
>



See https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto

[2]
> [2] for more detials
>
> Jachym
>
> P.S. Please, lets continue with the discussion to
conference-europe
> mlist, I used discussions mlist just for initial info
>
>
>
> Links:
> --
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017 [3]
> [2]
>
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto
[4]



Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017
[2] 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto

[3] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017
[4] 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto

[5] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe
[6] mailto:till.ad...@fossgis.de


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Foss4G-Europe 2017

[till . adams]

Hi Jachym,

great to go forward with this. I'd say: Will not be in Bonn ;-)

We should establish kind of Conference Committee, that at least 
assesses the proposals and does the voting.


How was the procedure up now?

Till




Am 2016-05-04 08:56, schrieb Jachym Cepicky:

Hi,

yes, its time to start with this. Shall we call for venue? Any
proposals already?

Ive created wiki page for this 

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017 [1]

Steps we need to do:

1 - Call for venue
2 - Select best venue
3 - Make conference

Venue requirements: 

500 participants
more unconference style event?
workshops
code sprints

See https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto
[2] for more detials

Jachym

P.S. Please, lets continue with the discussion to conference-europe
mlist, I used discussions mlist just for initial info



Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017
[2] 
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Foss4G-Europe 2017

[Jachym Cepicky]

Hi,

yes, it's time to start with this. Shall we call for venue? Any proposals
already?

I've created wiki page for this

https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference-Europe_2017

Steps we need to do:

1 - Call for venue
2 - Select best venue
3 - Make conference

Venue requirements:

500 participants
more unconference style event?
workshops
code sprints
See https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Manifesto#FOSS4G_Europe_Manifesto for
more detials


Jachym

P.S. Please, let's continue with the discussion to conference-europe mlist,
I used discussions mlist just for initial info
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss