[Board] About some process clarification

[Venkatesh Raghavan]

On 2/22/2016 2:59 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> 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.

I do not think that we need to wait until the next board meeting to inform
the community (internal and external) about procedural changes in
managing some process. And I think Tom and Mateusz (our Open Hub managers)
would not mind to answering our questions by e-mail.

> 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.

I am fine with that. The "Feedback" section of [1] will need to be 
edited to reflect
the status update on service providers.

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/spd_help

>
> --
> 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
>>