<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Even,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I support this move! </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Frank</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Even Rouault via Tiff <<a href="mailto:tiff@lists.osgeo.org">tiff@lists.osgeo.org</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"><u></u>
<div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid2"><span>Dear libtiff
community,</span></div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid3"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid4"><span>The libtiff
project has run for many years without a formal governing body,
and while it has worked well for most of the time, when
difficult non-consensual decisions have to be made, it has
showed its limits. Recently this was the case for the removal in
the default build of the retired TIFF command line utilities.
Hence with a group of other stakeholders including me, Su Laus,
Bob Friesenhahn, Leonard Rosenthol, Roger Leigh, Olivier Paquet
and Timothy Lyanguzov, we are proposing to form a Project
Steering Committee (PSC) for libtiff, with us as the initial
members of the PSC. That committee would have voting powers to
make decisions on behalf of the project. This is a structure
that is heavily used in most of the projects affiliated with the
Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) in the geospatial
field where I'm involved. A rather successful model for the
working and scope of such a committee is for example the one
used by the GDAL (</span><span><a href="https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc1_pmc.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://gdal.org/development/rfc/rfc1_pmc.html</a></span><span>) and
MapServer (</span><span><a href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-23.html</a></span><span> ) projects
since 2007</span></div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid5"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid6"><span>Those rules
have served well those projects in the last 17 years, and can
handle situations where PSC members become inactive without
formally resigning (the PSC can of course also decide to
formally remove members that no longer participate). So we are
considering taking strong inspiration from them for the working
of the libtiff PSC . In the adaptations that have been discussed
between us, the 2 business day minimum delay indicated for
formal votes is probably too short given libtiff usual pace and
could be extended to 5. For GDAL and MapServer, we also
traditionally put adoption of release candidates as final
approved releases to a PSC vote. It could be discussed if we'd
want to do that for libtiff too. For the concrete mode of
operation, typically in GDAL, when a formal decision has to be
made, there is a first round of emails "Call for discussion:
topic XXXX", and once the discussion seems to have come to a
conclusion there's a "Motion: decision XXXX" where PSC members
cast their +1, +0, 0, -0, -1 votes. </span></div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid7"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid8"><span>One
advantage of the PSC is that difficult decisions are made on
behalf on the group, which avoids them to be borne by
individuals. Having a PSC doesn't obviously exclude trying to
reach consensus among the broader community. Not everything
needs to be formally discussed and voted. Normal bug-fixing or
"small" new features can be dealt in merge requests as usual,
and don't require email traffic. But removing tools or
functionality, break of backward compatibility, or significant
addition of new functionality are topics for discussion and
formal votes. </span></div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid9"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid10"><span>So, this
email is to gather feedback from the libtiff community at large
to check if the idea of a PSC, and its proposed initial
membership, makes sense. If people would like to be included to
the initial PSC, they can (possibly privately) reach to us, so
we can discuss this possibility.</span></div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid11"><br>
</div>
<div id="m_-7034179720277573774magicdomid12"><span>Best
regards,</span></div>
<p></p>
<pre cols="72">--
<a href="http://www.spatialys.com" target="_blank">http://www.spatialys.com</a>
My software is free, but my time generally not.</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tiff mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tiff@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Tiff@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="monospace">---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------<br>I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, <a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com" target="_blank">warmerdam@pobox.com</a><br>light and sound - activate the windows | USA: +1 650-701-7823<a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B16507017823" rel="noopener" title="Call +1 650-701-7823 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><br>and watch the world go round - Rush | CAN: +1 343-550-9984</font></div></div></div></div></div>