[Qgis-psc] Documentation meeting? Was: Toughts after November PSC
Alexandre Neto
senhor.neto at gmail.com
Wed Nov 27 14:18:48 PST 2019
Hi all,
I think key people are those that have pronounced in the past in regards to
documentation and those that work on it regularly.
This being said, maybe we can redo the doodle for the next two weeks.
What is the normal time and week day of psc meetings? That may help.
Thanks,
Alexandre Neto
A terça, 26/11/2019, 16:09, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
escreveu:
> Hi Anita, all
> maybe a different schedule will improve participation.
> Alexandre, as first proponent, would you like to consult with key people
> and propose a different timing?
> Cheers.
>
> Il 26/11/19 16:43, Anita Graser ha scritto:
> > Feel free to proceed without me. I'll try to make joining possible if
> > it's during office hours but I cannot guarantee that I'll make it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anita
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it
> > <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > unfortunately it seems very difficult to have >5 people attending.
> > Should we postpone of another week? Would this make participation
> > easier?
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Il 25/11/19 13:28, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto:
> > > I prepared a Doodle, le't find a date:
> > > https://doodle.com/poll/znd5ywwxtcwcmg49
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Il 25/11/19 13:19, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 23 Nov 2019, at 17:14, Alexandre Neto <senhor.neto at gmail.com
> > <mailto:senhor.neto at gmail.com>
> > >>> <mailto:senhor.neto at gmail.com <mailto:senhor.neto at gmail.com>>>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry for the thread hijacking.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regarding the Documentation, as Tim mentioned, video meetings are
> > >>> probably much more productive (and clarifying about others
> opinions)
> > >>> than enumerous threads and long messages in the mailing lists.
> > >>>
> > >>> This being said, can I suggest doing a special PSC meeting (or
> > >>> something similar) together with the most active or interest
> members
> > >>> of the documentation team, for us to agree on some strategies
> going
> > >>> forward?
> > >>
> > >> +1 from me, great idea!
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Alexandre Neto
> > >>>
> > >>> A sexta, 22/11/2019, 07:00, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com
> > <mailto:tim at kartoza.com>
> > >>> <mailto:tim at kartoza.com <mailto:tim at kartoza.com>>> escreveu:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 21 Nov 2019, at 16:36, Paolo Cavallini
> > <cavallini at faunalia.it <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>
> > >>>> <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it
> > <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Right. If possible and doesn't trigger a lot of followup
> > costs.
> > >>>>> Sometimes it is better to outsource to a proprietary
> > solution, if it
> > >>>>> saves us a lot of time and efforts (think about our usage
> > of Google
> > >>>>> docs, as an example).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> of course cost is an issue. using and designing
> infrastructures
> > >>>> that are
> > >>>> complex, essentially in the hand of a single person,
> > difficult or
> > >>>> impossible to handle for others, is a major concern to me.
> > >>>> the key point here is openness: I think we should avoid
> > making the
> > >>>> project less open than it could be.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 8< ———— snip
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What do you think about this proposal. Do you still think
> > there is a
> > >>>>> need to run all of our expenses around our IT
> infrastructure
> > >>>>> through the
> > >>>>> voting members?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course, running costs, once approved, should not be
> > discussed
> > >>>> every
> > >>>> time. I see a number of projects, however, that have been
> > financed as
> > >>>> special projects, and could be very well have been run
> > through a
> > >>>> public
> > >>>> assessment.
> > >>>> again, I'm talking about openness: directing things top
> > down may seem
> > >>>> more efficient at first, but I believe in the long run it
> > is not.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Right but I think you are mischaracterising Andreas’
> approach as
> > >>> ’not open’. The budget and cost renters would be clear, open
> and
> > >>> agreed with the community, as would the post spending
> reporting.
> > >>> It just means that for certain cases there is not a 3 month
> lead
> > >>> up needed before money could be spent. Denis’ recent request
> for
> > >>> addition support with the python API docs was maybe a good
> > example
> > >>> of this.
> > >>>
> > >>> 8< —————snip ——————
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> * due to connection issues, I've not clear what the
> outcome
> > >>>>> of the
> > >>>>> Documentation discussion was; I made my proposal [0], I
> > would
> > >>>>> appreciate
> > >>>>> further comments on it so we can start working on a
> clear
> > >>>>> solution
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Tim presented his platform for training lessons. That's
> > was mainly
> > >>>>> discussed. Sorry, we haven't discussed or came up with a
> > >>>>> solution for
> > >>>>> the documentation problem yet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I see this issue keep on attracting little interest. I
> suggest
> > >>>> keeping
> > >>>> on discussing about this on the mailing list
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the case is more that the issue is complex and
> > perplexing
> > >>> as we are trying to serve many different needs. Discussing
> it on
> > >>> the mailing list is fine but honestly this (like many
> > discussions
> > >>> on the mailing list) is just circular with many thread
> > hijackings,
> > >>> cross issues etc. it becomes difficult to know where we even
> are
> > >>> in the discussions. For example your proposed approach to
> > >>> documentation, Harrisou already responded that he would be
> > really
> > >>> upset to lose translations, asking for example of a platform
> > where
> > >>> documentation can allow commenting and user augmentation
> > etc. and
> > >>> his request went unanswered IIRC. This is an example where it
> > >>> would be better to go off in a huddle with Harrisou and other
> > >>> interested parties and come up with a proposal which they are
> > >>> invested in, then bring it back to the mailing list as a
> > proposal
> > >>> that already has the buy-in from key role-players.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> * we need simple rules for adding news, even though a
> > degree of
> > >>>>> flexibility is useful; cen we agree on [1]?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From your original list:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. global Contributors Meetings announcements (local ones
> > only if geofenced)
> > >>> 2. global QGIS Days (local ones only if geofenced)
> > >>> 3. requests for sponsorship of specific projects
> > >>> 4. crowdfunding announcements
> > >>> 5. callouts for testing of upcoming qgis releases
> > >>> 6. new release announcements when changelog is published
> > (after we get
> > >>> rid of the small banner)
> > >>> 7. survey announcements.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I just wonder why we need all these rules? We could also
> > just rely
> > >>> on common sense, ensuring that anything posted is of broad
> > >>> interest, and ask the authors to float anything up to the
> PSC if
> > >>> they are not sure. For me it is similar to the blog.qgis.org
> > <http://blog.qgis.org>
> > >>> <http://blog.qgis.org/> which is the ‘voice of the project’
> - we
> > >>> never really had any problem with what should and shouldn’t
> > go on
> > >>> there…..
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That wasn't discussed. What I suggest: please put it into
> > the PSC
> > >>>>> meeting document for next meeting. These meeting documents
> > are our
> > >>>>> central log for our discussions and decisions. Everything
> else
> > >>>>> is lost
> > >>>>> quite easily. So if you want a decision on that, please
> > suggest
> > >>>>> a text
> > >>>>> in our next meeting document and formulate it there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMHO we should decide whatever is possible here in the
> > mailing list,
> > >>>> leaving PSC meeting for the most complex issues, that
> require a
> > >>>> proper
> > >>>> discussion in voice. I think most issues can be solved in
> > writing.
> > >>>> I remember the good old IRC meetings, very good for many
> > >>>> decisions, less
> > >>>> so for general discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I think your memory of IRC meetings is clouded by geek
> nostalgia
> > >>> :-) I have very clear memories of being in meetings and
> waiting
> > >>> for ages for each person to respond because they had
> basically
> > >>> wondered away from the computer / opened another app and
> > were not
> > >>> focussed on the IRC channel. In a voice meeting you can
> clearly
> > >>> know if the participants are present and engaged. IRC was
> > frankly
> > >>> awful and is no substitute for a well run voice meeting. Of
> > course
> > >>> a badly run voice meeting is not much better than a badly
> > run IRC
> > >>> meeting :-) But in general you can put a lot of nuanced
> > >>> information across much more quickly in voice than you can
> > typing
> > >>> in an IRC channel. There is another thing that I find voice /
> > >>> video meetings really good for: Email / IRC discussions can
> > often
> > >>> sound much more heated than they really are, voice calls
> carry a
> > >>> lot of extra context over in the conversation and we get to
> hear
> > >>> tone and sentiment portrayed much more accurately. Speaking
> in
> > >>> voice reminds us that we are humans, gives us a sense of
> shared
> > >>> endeavour and rapport that simply don’t manifest in the
> rather
> > >>> functional and faceless platform of email / irc.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> IMHO PSC meetings are lasting too long, and are not a very
> > >>>> efficient way
> > >>>> of making decisions. Having just one meeting once a month
> does
> > >>>> not help
> > >>>> taking timely and efficient decisions.
> > >>>
> > >>> I’m fine with discussing things on the mailing list, but
> > they are
> > >>> really bad places for actual decisions. People call for
> > votes too
> > >>> quickly, or vote on things when no call has been made, votes
> > come
> > >>> through in bits in pieces, there is no clarity on who should
> > >>> actually be voting, it is difficult to know when votes are
> > >>> finished, new threads emerge soon after one finishes where
> new
> > >>> votes are made and it is basically impossible to track any
> > >>> decisions. Also in email, people are extremely selective
> about
> > >>> which parts of an email they respond to so many concerns
> > often go
> > >>> unaddressed. In voice it is much easier to dig and get the
> > >>> specific information you need. An example of this is Anita’s
> > >>> recent comment in an off list chat about putting out
> one-liner
> > >>> emails with little context leaving the reader to puzzle out
> what
> > >>> is intended - in a conversation you can just ask the person
> > >>> ‘please clarify’.
> > >>>
> > >>> In terms of our meetings lasting long, yes we should try to
> > >>> time-cap meetings, but I also think (as I was alluding to
> above)
> > >>> that there is huge merit in us actually spending time
> together
> > >>> thrashing things out rather than rushing in, rushing out of
> > >>> meetings. Ideally our meetings should be run in a way that
> the
> > >>> document agenda contains a list of clear ‘yes/no’
> > proposals, with
> > >>> an opportunity for the proposer to give some background to
> the
> > >>> proposal in voice and the PSC to ask any questions to inform
> > their
> > >>> vote, then the execution of a quick vote directly in the
> google
> > >>> doc. All of that can be time capped to e.g. 1 hour. Whatever
> > >>> doesn’t get covered gets carried over to the top of the next
> > >>> meetings agenda.
> > >>>
> > >>> I really like the chance to hang out before / after the
> meetings
> > >>> to dig into topics a little more. You also get a good sense
> of
> > >>> where people are in their private lives and can use that to
> > >>> understand tone in subtext in emails over the subsequent
> month.
> > >>> Frankly some of the exchanges we have on email these days
> > worry me
> > >>> that people are getting unhappy and that we are losing
> cohesion.
> > >>> Spending time together and getting on the same page about
> things
> > >>> is a good fix for that…I think this is especially important
> for
> > >>> you Paolo - as project chair you should be working hard to
> > have a
> > >>> deep sense of rapport with the team (first to arrive, last to
> > >>> leave) so that you can get the most possible enthusiasm and
> > >>> collaboration from everyone in the PSC and in the community,
> > and
> > >>> set the general direction of how the project is going.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> It would be valuable and more efficient if all of our
> > >>>>> discussions and
> > >>>>> decisions really end up in these meeting documents.
> Everything
> > >>>>> else is
> > >>>>> just discussion to me, and not a formal decision.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think we can vote here for most issues.
> > >>>> In short, I propose to put forward all the issues here on
> > the ML, and
> > >>>> leave to the voice meetings what we were unable to solve
> during
> > >>>> the month.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ok, again I say that ML is a terrible place to find
> > decisions and
> > >>> we should use them for discussing things and record the
> > decisions
> > >>> on something like loomio on a wiki or somewhere discoverable
> and
> > >>> canonical.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyway good discussion folks, rock on QGIS! Lets be human and
> > >>> remember that talking to each other is a key part of being a
> > good
> > >>> team for providing the much needed governance to the QGIS
> > project. :-)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>>
> > >>> Tim
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers.
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu <http://www.faunalia.eu>
> > <http://www.faunalia.eu/>
> > >>>> QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://qgis.org/> Chair:
> > >>>> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
> > >>>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>>
> > >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>
> > >>> *Tim Sutton*
> > >>> tim at qgis.org <mailto:tim at qgis.org> <mailto:tim at qgis.org
> > <mailto:tim at qgis.org>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
> > >>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>>
> > >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> > >>>
> > >>>
> <qgis-icon-60x60.png>_______________________________________________
> > >>> Qgis-psc mailing list
> > >>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>>
> > >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *Tim Sutton*
> > >>
> > >> *Co-founder:* Kartoza
> > >> *Ex Project chair:* QGIS.org <http://QGIS.org>
> > >>
> > >> Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out about
> open
> > >> source:
> > >>
> > >> Desktop GIS programming services
> > >> Geospatial web development
> > >> GIS Training
> > >> Consulting Services
> > >>
> > >> *Skype*: timlinux
> > >> *IRC:* timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net <http://freenode.net>
> > <http://freenode.net>
> > >>
> > >> I'd love to connect. Here's my calendar link
> > >> <https://calendly.com/timlinux> to make finding time easy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Qgis-psc mailing list
> > >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu <http://www.faunalia.eu>
> > QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> Chair:
> > http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> >
>
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191127/07897f93/attachment.html>
More information about the Qgis-psc
mailing list