<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Feel free to proceed without me. I'll try to make joining possible if it's during office hours but I cannot guarantee that I'll make it.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Anita</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Paolo Cavallini <<a href="mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it">cavallini@faunalia.it</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
unfortunately it seems very difficult to have >5 people attending.<br>
Should we postpone of another week? Would this make participation easier?<br>
Cheers.<br>
<br>
Il 25/11/19 13:28, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto:<br>
> I prepared a Doodle, le't find a date:<br>
> <a href="https://doodle.com/poll/znd5ywwxtcwcmg49" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://doodle.com/poll/znd5ywwxtcwcmg49</a><br>
> cheers<br>
> <br>
> Il 25/11/19 13:19, Tim Sutton ha scritto:<br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 23 Nov 2019, at 17:14, Alexandre Neto <<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:senhor.neto@gmail.com" target="_blank">senhor.neto@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sorry for the thread hijacking. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Regarding the Documentation, as Tim mentioned, video meetings are<br>
>>> probably much more productive (and clarifying about others opinions)<br>
>>> than enumerous threads and long messages in the mailing lists. <br>
>>><br>
>>> This being said, can I suggest doing a special PSC meeting (or<br>
>>> something similar) together with the most active or interest members<br>
>>> of the documentation team, for us to agree on some strategies going<br>
>>> forward?<br>
>><br>
>> +1 from me, great idea!<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Tim<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Alexandre Neto<br>
>>><br>
>>> A sexta, 22/11/2019, 07:00, Tim Sutton <<a href="mailto:tim@kartoza.com" target="_blank">tim@kartoza.com</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tim@kartoza.com" target="_blank">tim@kartoza.com</a>>> escreveu:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 21 Nov 2019, at 16:36, Paolo Cavallini <<a href="mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it" target="_blank">cavallini@faunalia.it</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cavallini@faunalia.it" target="_blank">cavallini@faunalia.it</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Right. If possible and doesn't trigger a lot of followup costs.<br>
>>>>> Sometimes it is better to outsource to a proprietary solution, if it<br>
>>>>> saves us a lot of time and efforts (think about our usage of Google<br>
>>>>> docs, as an example).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> of course cost is an issue. using and designing infrastructures<br>
>>>> that are<br>
>>>> complex, essentially in the hand of a single person, difficult or<br>
>>>> impossible to handle for others, is a major concern to me.<br>
>>>> the key point here is openness: I think we should avoid making the<br>
>>>> project less open than it could be.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 8< ———— snip<br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> What do you think about this proposal. Do you still think there is a<br>
>>>>> need to run all of our expenses around our IT infrastructure<br>
>>>>> through the<br>
>>>>> voting members?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Of course, running costs, once approved, should not be discussed<br>
>>>> every<br>
>>>> time. I see a number of projects, however, that have been financed as<br>
>>>> special projects, and could be very well have been run through a<br>
>>>> public<br>
>>>> assessment.<br>
>>>> again, I'm talking about openness: directing things top down may seem<br>
>>>> more efficient at first, but I believe in the long run it is not.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Right but I think you are mischaracterising Andreas’ approach as<br>
>>> ’not open’. The budget and cost renters would be clear, open and<br>
>>> agreed with the community, as would the post spending reporting.<br>
>>> It just means that for certain cases there is not a 3 month lead<br>
>>> up needed before money could be spent. Denis’ recent request for<br>
>>> addition support with the python API docs was maybe a good example<br>
>>> of this.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 8< —————snip —————— <br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> * due to connection issues, I've not clear what the outcome<br>
>>>>> of the<br>
>>>>> Documentation discussion was; I made my proposal [0], I would<br>
>>>>> appreciate<br>
>>>>> further comments on it so we can start working on a clear<br>
>>>>> solution<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Tim presented his platform for training lessons. That's was mainly<br>
>>>>> discussed. Sorry, we haven't discussed or came up with a<br>
>>>>> solution for<br>
>>>>> the documentation problem yet.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I see this issue keep on attracting little interest. I suggest<br>
>>>> keeping<br>
>>>> on discussing about this on the mailing list<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think the case is more that the issue is complex and perplexing<br>
>>> as we are trying to serve many different needs. Discussing it on<br>
>>> the mailing list is fine but honestly this (like many discussions<br>
>>> on the mailing list) is just circular with many thread hijackings,<br>
>>> cross issues etc. it becomes difficult to know where we even are<br>
>>> in the discussions. For example your proposed approach to<br>
>>> documentation, Harrisou already responded that he would be really<br>
>>> upset to lose translations, asking for example of a platform where<br>
>>> documentation can allow commenting and user augmentation etc. and<br>
>>> his request went unanswered IIRC. This is an example where it<br>
>>> would be better to go off in a huddle with Harrisou and other<br>
>>> interested parties and come up with a proposal which they are<br>
>>> invested in, then bring it back to the mailing list as a proposal<br>
>>> that already has the buy-in from key role-players.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> * we need simple rules for adding news, even though a degree of<br>
>>>>> flexibility is useful; cen we agree on [1]?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From your original list:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. global Contributors Meetings announcements (local ones only if geofenced)<br>
>>> 2. global QGIS Days (local ones only if geofenced)<br>
>>> 3. requests for sponsorship of specific projects<br>
>>> 4. crowdfunding announcements<br>
>>> 5. callouts for testing of upcoming qgis releases<br>
>>> 6. new release announcements when changelog is published (after we get<br>
>>> rid of the small banner)<br>
>>> 7. survey announcements.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I just wonder why we need all these rules? We could also just rely<br>
>>> on common sense, ensuring that anything posted is of broad<br>
>>> interest, and ask the authors to float anything up to the PSC if<br>
>>> they are not sure. For me it is similar to the <a href="http://blog.qgis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">blog.qgis.org</a><br>
>>> <<a href="http://blog.qgis.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://blog.qgis.org/</a>> which is the ‘voice of the project’ - we<br>
>>> never really had any problem with what should and shouldn’t go on<br>
>>> there…..<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> That wasn't discussed. What I suggest: please put it into the PSC<br>
>>>>> meeting document for next meeting. These meeting documents are our<br>
>>>>> central log for our discussions and decisions. Everything else<br>
>>>>> is lost<br>
>>>>> quite easily. So if you want a decision on that, please suggest<br>
>>>>> a text<br>
>>>>> in our next meeting document and formulate it there.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> IMHO we should decide whatever is possible here in the mailing list,<br>
>>>> leaving PSC meeting for the most complex issues, that require a<br>
>>>> proper<br>
>>>> discussion in voice. I think most issues can be solved in writing.<br>
>>>> I remember the good old IRC meetings, very good for many<br>
>>>> decisions, less<br>
>>>> so for general discussion.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I think your memory of IRC meetings is clouded by geek nostalgia<br>
>>> :-) I have very clear memories of being in meetings and waiting<br>
>>> for ages for each person to respond because they had basically<br>
>>> wondered away from the computer / opened another app and were not<br>
>>> focussed on the IRC channel. In a voice meeting you can clearly<br>
>>> know if the participants are present and engaged. IRC was frankly<br>
>>> awful and is no substitute for a well run voice meeting. Of course<br>
>>> a badly run voice meeting is not much better than a badly run IRC<br>
>>> meeting :-) But in general you can put a lot of nuanced<br>
>>> information across much more quickly in voice than you can typing<br>
>>> in an IRC channel. There is another thing that I find voice /<br>
>>> video meetings really good for: Email / IRC discussions can often<br>
>>> sound much more heated than they really are, voice calls carry a<br>
>>> lot of extra context over in the conversation and we get to hear<br>
>>> tone and sentiment portrayed much more accurately. Speaking in<br>
>>> voice reminds us that we are humans, gives us a sense of shared<br>
>>> endeavour and rapport that simply don’t manifest in the rather<br>
>>> functional and faceless platform of email / irc. <br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> IMHO PSC meetings are lasting too long, and are not a very<br>
>>>> efficient way<br>
>>>> of making decisions. Having just one meeting once a month does<br>
>>>> not help<br>
>>>> taking timely and efficient decisions.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I’m fine with discussing things on the mailing list, but they are<br>
>>> really bad places for actual decisions. People call for votes too<br>
>>> quickly, or vote on things when no call has been made, votes come<br>
>>> through in bits in pieces, there is no clarity on who should<br>
>>> actually be voting, it is difficult to know when votes are<br>
>>> finished, new threads emerge soon after one finishes where new<br>
>>> votes are made and it is basically impossible to track any<br>
>>> decisions. Also in email, people are extremely selective about<br>
>>> which parts of an email they respond to so many concerns often go<br>
>>> unaddressed. In voice it is much easier to dig and get the<br>
>>> specific information you need. An example of this is Anita’s<br>
>>> recent comment in an off list chat about putting out one-liner<br>
>>> emails with little context leaving the reader to puzzle out what<br>
>>> is intended - in a conversation you can just ask the person<br>
>>> ‘please clarify’.<br>
>>><br>
>>> In terms of our meetings lasting long, yes we should try to<br>
>>> time-cap meetings, but I also think (as I was alluding to above)<br>
>>> that there is huge merit in us actually spending time together<br>
>>> thrashing things out rather than rushing in, rushing out of<br>
>>> meetings. Ideally our meetings should be run in a way that the<br>
>>> document agenda contains a list of clear ‘yes/no’ proposals, with<br>
>>> an opportunity for the proposer to give some background to the<br>
>>> proposal in voice and the PSC to ask any questions to inform their<br>
>>> vote, then the execution of a quick vote directly in the google<br>
>>> doc. All of that can be time capped to e.g. 1 hour. Whatever<br>
>>> doesn’t get covered gets carried over to the top of the next<br>
>>> meetings agenda. <br>
>>><br>
>>> I really like the chance to hang out before / after the meetings<br>
>>> to dig into topics a little more. You also get a good sense of<br>
>>> where people are in their private lives and can use that to<br>
>>> understand tone in subtext in emails over the subsequent month.<br>
>>> Frankly some of the exchanges we have on email these days worry me<br>
>>> that people are getting unhappy and that we are losing cohesion.<br>
>>> Spending time together and getting on the same page about things<br>
>>> is a good fix for that…I think this is especially important for<br>
>>> you Paolo - as project chair you should be working hard to have a<br>
>>> deep sense of rapport with the team (first to arrive, last to<br>
>>> leave) so that you can get the most possible enthusiasm and<br>
>>> collaboration from everyone in the PSC and in the community, and<br>
>>> set the general direction of how the project is going.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> It would be valuable and more efficient if all of our<br>
>>>>> discussions and<br>
>>>>> decisions really end up in these meeting documents. Everything<br>
>>>>> else is<br>
>>>>> just discussion to me, and not a formal decision.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think we can vote here for most issues.<br>
>>>> In short, I propose to put forward all the issues here on the ML, and<br>
>>>> leave to the voice meetings what we were unable to solve during<br>
>>>> the month.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ok, again I say that ML is a terrible place to find decisions and<br>
>>> we should use them for discussing things and record the decisions<br>
>>> on something like loomio on a wiki or somewhere discoverable and<br>
>>> canonical.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Anyway good discussion folks, rock on QGIS! Lets be human and<br>
>>> remember that talking to each other is a key part of being a good<br>
>>> team for providing the much needed governance to the QGIS project. :-)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> Tim<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Cheers.<br>
>>>> -- <br>
>>>> Paolo Cavallini - <a href="http://www.faunalia.eu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.faunalia.eu</a> <<a href="http://www.faunalia.eu/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.faunalia.eu/</a>><br>
>>>> <a href="http://QGIS.ORG" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a> <<a href="http://qgis.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://qgis.org/</a>> Chair:<br>
>>>> <a href="http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/</a><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ---<br>
>>><br>
>>> *Tim Sutton*<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:tim@qgis.org" target="_blank">tim@qgis.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tim@qgis.org" target="_blank">tim@qgis.org</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <qgis-icon-60x60.png>_______________________________________________<br>
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
>><br>
>> —<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *Tim Sutton*<br>
>><br>
>> *Co-founder:* Kartoza<br>
>> *Ex Project chair:* QGIS.org <<a href="http://QGIS.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://QGIS.org</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Visit <a href="http://kartoza.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://kartoza.com</a> <<a href="http://kartoza.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://kartoza.com/</a>> to find out about open<br>
>> source:<br>
>><br>
>> Desktop GIS programming services<br>
>> Geospatial web development<br>
>> GIS Training<br>
>> Consulting Services<br>
>><br>
>> *Skype*: timlinux <br>
>> *IRC:* timlinux on #qgis at <a href="http://freenode.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">freenode.net</a> <<a href="http://freenode.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://freenode.net</a>><br>
>><br>
>> I'd love to connect. Here's my calendar link<br>
>> <<a href="https://calendly.com/timlinux" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://calendly.com/timlinux</a>> to make finding time easy.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
>><br>
> <br>
<br>
-- <br>
Paolo Cavallini - <a href="http://www.faunalia.eu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.faunalia.eu</a><br>
<a href="http://QGIS.ORG" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a> Chair:<br>
<a href="http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a></blockquote></div>