[mapserver-dev] MS-RFC-116 call for discussion: service provider page

[Even Rouault]

Le vendredi 04 mars 2016 17:09:50, Daniel Morissette a écrit :
> FYI I added Section 2.4 to the RFC to address this:
> 
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-116.html

Any reason not to put the RFC to vote ?

> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 2016-03-04 8:40 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> > It's a very good point that Steve raised and I like Even's suggestions
> > of a review every few years (when we see fit) with a notice of a few
> > weeks via the mailing lists to give a chance to all orgs to confirm
> > their interested in continuing to be listed. We can leave the details of
> > the process (ticket vs mailing list) open to the preference of whoever
> > does the review.
> > 
> > I will amend the RFC with a note about this.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > On 2016-03-04 6:18 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
> >> Le lundi 29 février 2016 20:59:47, Lime, Steve D (MNIT) a écrit :
> >>> I have no problem with this at all. My only question would be how to
> >>> keep
> >>> it current, I mean how would a service provider be removed from the
> >>> list(s) - criteria and process?
> >> 
> >> (resent with reply to all)
> >> 
> >> If at some point (every 2 years ?) we feel that the list is or might
> >> be no
> >> longer current, we could "reboot" the process, ie remove/comment out all
> >> service providers, send an email to the list (dev list only?) to
> >> notify about
> >> it and let people still interested re-add them ?
> >> 
> >> Perhaps simpler alternative, with less churn in the docs repository
> >> and PR to
> >> deal with :
> >> * create a github ticket dedicated for the refresh
> >> * send an email to the list with this message "in 4 weeks, we are
> >> going to
> >> remove all currently listed service providers to refresh the site. If
> >> you are
> >> still interested, add a note to ticket XXXX" (instead of the ticket we
> >> could
> >> just ask to reply to the email. The small advantage of the ticket is to
> >> generate less email traffic for those not interested)
> >> 
> >> Even

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com