[Qgis-psc] Documentation meeting? Was: Toughts after November PSC
Andreas Neumann
a.neumann at carto.net
Wed Nov 27 14:22:34 PST 2019
Hi Alex,
The normal time for PSC meetings is 20:00 CET. This allows people who
work voluntary on QGIS (I guess the majority) and who have a day job to
participate.
However, this fits everyone except Paolo. Tim also prefers an hour
earlier, as far as I know.
Andreas
Am 27.11.19 um 23:18 schrieb Alexandre Neto:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > >>> <mailto: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>>
> > >>> <mailto: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>>
> > >>>> <mailto: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>
> > >>> <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>
> > <http://www.faunalia.eu/>
> > >>>> QGIS.ORG <http://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>>
> > <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <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> <mailto: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>
> <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
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d213276f/attachment.html>
More information about the Qgis-psc
mailing list