[MapProxy-dev] VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

[Matt Walker]

+1

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, 10:36 Oliver Tonnhofer, <olt at omniscale.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>
> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS
> guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC
> member and agree to all other new committee members.
>
> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I
> will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed.
> Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both
> from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to
> increase the "bus number".
>
> Finally my vote: +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
> > On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <olt at omniscale.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
> >
> > I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All
> of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in
> the past. So far we have:
> >
> > Denis Rykov
> > Johannes Weskamm
> > Just van den Broecke
> > Matt Walker
> > Oliver Tonnhofer
> > Ramūnas Dronga
> > Tom Kralidis
> >
> > Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are
> using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you
> have any plans within your PSC membership?
> >
> >
> > Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a
> look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is
> more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and
> PyGeoAPI.
> > Make sure you all understood the responsibilities:
> https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
> >
> > The only major change is that I increased the review period from two
> days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes
> aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one
> command away.)
> >
> > I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do
> we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR?
> Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing
> list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should
> write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise
> they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to
> make an RFC on their own.)
> >
> > I'm quite open to all of these options.
> >
> > [0]
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oliver
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> > OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> MapProxy-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapproxy-dev/attachments/20200824/cf1d870e/attachment.html>