It seems to me that it would be a step backwards to have the people voted into the PSC start stepping back. The people that were elected seem to me to be a good core group. I do however agree with Charlie that having some additional domain knowledge represented would be extremely helpful in ensuring that the next version of OAM doesn't exclude the needs of any major user groups.
It was my understand that the initial PSC would try to identify 4 other PSC members that fill out the needs of the group. Some of these could be from the initial PSC nominations, but likely not all of them. I would suggest that the PSC agree on the types of people needed to fill out the PSC, and then begin a search to identify those people and present them to the community for a vote, or if its less complicated the PSC can simply vote in new members. It seems to me that the PSC can always ask community members to make recommendations based on specific needs, even in the form of a committee if needed, but that expanding the OAM 'administration' seems a bit premature at this point. Chris On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:15 AM, John Crowley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also happy to recuse myself from the PSC. > > I've found that a global team of 11 can work, but it requires sacrifices on > the part of the team. Time zones will inevitably make any workable time for > voice conversations quite difficult to schedule as well as very late or > early in the day for at least a few team members, especially if the team is > composed of people who travel internationally on a regular basis. A small > core is often easier (but not necessary better), but it should be no smaller > than 5. > > To make it easier to get this project off the ground, could I suggest the > following version 0.01 temporary, modular structure: > > 1) An smallish PSC (5-8) that would be charged with making the decisions to > get OAM back online; and > > 2) an Advisory Committee (AC) that would make domain-specific > recommendations to the PSC (e.g., disaster/humanitarian response, > architectural and computation issues, remote sensing). The AC could be of a > larger size (12+) with smaller panels around specific issues or projects. > The first AC panel might be around the storage architecture and tile > processing. > > Would that allow us to accommodate the domain-specific expertise while > keeping a small and efficient core team? Please hack away and improve this > idea, if it has merit. > > Like Jeff, Schuyler, and Josh, I am also willing to recuse myself from the > PSC, or (in the propsed version 0.01 structure above) to leave the PSC and > join the Advisory Committee to represent the interest of the humanitarian > assistance/disaster response community for this term. > > - John > > > --- On *Tue, 12/8/09, Jeffrey Johnson <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Jeffrey Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OAM-talk] Completing the OAM PSC election process > To: "Schuyler Erle" <[email protected]> > Cc: "talk" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 1:23 PM > > > I'm more than willing to recuse myself. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Schuyler Erle > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 12:39 -0500, Schuyler Erle wrote: > >> Now, maybe 10 PSC members is starting to get a little unwieldy, but > >> perhaps it would be simplest to start there. Consensus decision making > >> works best with smaller numbers, but you can go up to about a dozen and > >> still have it still work, if everyone's committed to the process. > > > > Jeff Johnson has pointed out to me that there were 11 nominees. > > Apparently I can't count. :) I still like the idea of allowing nominees > > to recuse themselves in order to keep the PSC down to a reasonable > > number, and then appointing the rest. I'll volunteer, for one. If anyone > > else cares to, then we're down to the original proposed count of nine. > > > > SDE > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
