[Board] About some process clarification

[Jody Garnett]

Okay so this is Tom (as a SAC representative) letting us know about a
change to procedure.

I would put this on the agenda for the next board meeting, he can tell us
about it "in person" in case we have questions.

But I do not think we (as a board) need to vote on it - using trac to
manage the service provider page and OpenHUB would just be a status update.

--
Jody Garnett

On 21 February 2016 at 21:45, Venkatesh Raghavan <
raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:

> On 2/22/2016 2:28 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> Okay so this motion is to handle changes to support providers and "Open
>> Hub" via trac ...
>>
> Yes it is.
>
>>
>> I think SAC can make this decision (and it sounds like a good one). No
>> need
>> for the board to get involved unless asked.
>>
> Tom had asked for the board to approve the process and hence the motion
> was made.
>
>> (I am a firm believer in committees setting up shop as the volunteers see
>> fit - and changing their mind as often as needed)
>>
> (me too, as long as the change is documented so as not to confuse anyone)
>
> Venka
>
>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>> On 21 February 2016 at 20:59, Venkatesh Raghavan <
>> raghavan at media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/2016 1:07 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>>>
>>> Think those are two seperate motions:
>>>>
>>>> Fine.
>>>
>>> I would like to move a motion to approve
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Business process on managing OSGeo Open Hub requests
>>>>> using trac ticketing as outlined in [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 OSGeo "claiming" a project should be limited to "incubation" and
>>>>>
>>>> "osgeo
>>>> labs" (soon to be renamed) process.
>>>>
>>>> It would be a bit rude of us to claim projects that have:
>>>> a) not expressed interest in being part of osgeo
>>>> b) not met our requirements for being open source and inclusive
>>>>
>>>> I think this motion needs further clarification from my side.
>>> The intention of the motion was not about "claiming" projects but to make
>>> requests
>>> coming from OSGeo Projects (graduated, in incubation, osgeo-labs (or
>>> whatever
>>> we are going to name it)) more sustainable and transparent and traceable.
>>> Basically, to clarify on our website that requests regarding
>>> OSGeo-OpenHub
>>> [1]
>>> be filed as tract ticket rather than contacting the OSGeo-OpenHub
>>> managers
>>> (Mateusz Loskot and Tom Kralidis) directly or sending e-mail to
>>> info at osgeo.org
>>> as outlined in [2].
>>>
>>> The new process is described in the wiki-page that Tom made (I made a few
>>> minor edits)
>>> and available at [2] which needs to be approved by the board.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Venka
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.openhub.net/orgs/OSGeo
>>> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OpenHub
>>>
>>> 2) Managing OSGeo Service Provider updates using trac ticketing as
>>>>
>>>>> outlined in [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20160221/9ce2bb7b/attachment.htm>