[Qgis-psc] Improving the functioning of PSC

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Andreas,
thanks for your comments

Il 25/11/19 12:14, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
> About that secretary: do you want a permanent role for the secretary or
> would we define a "scribe"/secretary for each meeting? Of course, giving
> the nature of Google Docs, it would still be useful for everyone being
> able to write stuff into the document. And if the secretary is quite a
> lot involved in a certain discussion, it would be useful if someone else
> steps in for minuting. So we all should be a attentive and step in for
> others.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I think having always/mostly
the same person will guarantee consistence

> My comments are below:
> 
> On 2019-11-22 14:25, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> here my proposal to improve the functioning of the PSC.
>>
>> Decision making
>> =================
>> * one PSC member raise on the PSC mailing list a topic to be decided
>> * if the proponent believes the discussion in ML is sufficient, he calls
>> for a vote
>> * if not, he adds the point to the next PSC voice meeting, where it will
>> be discussed and voted
>> * once voted, he passes the decision to the Secretary, who adds the
>> resolution to the list of resolutions (see below)
>  
> Sounds all good to me.
>  
>  
>>
>>
>> Meetings
>> =========
>> * regular meeting once a month, at a fixed date
>> * ad hoc short meetings can be called anytime, to discuss single issues
>> and to have faster decisions and avoid too long regular meetings; only a
>> subset of the PSC members can be present at the ad hoc meetings, if they
>> are not interested in that specific topic; their vote will be counted
>> as +0
>> * every meeting will have a Chair, normally the PSC Chair, and a
>> Secretary, who will have the responsibility for completing the minutes
>>  
>  
> Sounds good
>  
>>
>>
>> List of resolutions
>> ====================
>> * each resolution will be listed according to a simple template:
>> Date of voting
>> Proponent
>> Rationale
>> Votes
>> Decision
>> Notes
>> * all resolutions will be added to a single location#
>>  
>  
> Public on our website? On Github or in a central Google Docs document?

see note # below

>> Reporting
>> ==========
>> * for each expenditure, before payment, a report must be completed by
>> the proponent, according to a simple template:
>> Date of resolution
>> Date of delivery
>> Proponent
>> Description of results
>> Eventual links to full description, commit etc.
>> Evaluation (success, partial success, failure)
>> * for recurring costs, only the initial report should be done
>> * all reports will be added to a single location#
>>  
>  
> Again - here I think we need some flexibility. I very much agree for
> QGIS grant projects, other large projects or contributor meetings. But
> for other work, such as for packaging, bug queue management, PR + code
> reviews, etc. - I don't think we gain much with such reports.

of course, I'll not insisting in having pointless reports; nevertheless,
a simple two lines description will add clarity for everybody, and will
be good IMHO
I'm thinking to something like: rental of new server @Hetzner for
hosting .... etc., proposed by ... and so on, not more than this.

>> To Do list
>> ===========
>> * a list of tasks to be completed will be maintained and available on
>> the web#
>> * for each item it will be listed:
>> Date of proposal
>> Deadline
>> Proponent
>> Responsible
>> Description
>> Notes
>> Status (standby, in progress, completed)
>  
> We already have todo lists in our meeting minutes. Do we need an
> additional one? Maybe a central one would be useful to avoid duplication
> in the meeting minutes. So the meeting minutes would point to the
> central TODO file - right?

exactly; I find the todo in the minutes confusing, with lots of
replication, and easy to overlook

>> # I propose to add all documents to
>> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Website/tree/master/source/site/getinvolved/governance
>> and compiled into the main website, as this is simple and easy to
>> search, also in the long term.
>> Minutes IMHO can stay in a dynamic infrastructure, like GDocs, where the
>> advantages of communal editing are evident.
>>  
>  
> Sounds reasonable. So everything (TODO, decisions, etc.) would basically
> be public?

yes

> What to do the others think?

cheers
-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/