[Qgis-psc] [vote] PSC seat count

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi,

That is also my idea - more people on the PSC, more people who can take 
on work, or as Marco said it "more shoulders to distribute the work". 
The motivation to do work for QGIS.ORG is quite likely quite a bit 
higher if one also gets a recognition by being part of the PSC. Hence 
also my occasional proposal to make use of our ability to award 
"honorary members and/or honorary PSC members" ;-)

But I don't want to fight over this, if you all think it is not a good idea.

@Tim: we really appreciate you participating at PSC meetings, and your 
input is valuable, but please don't feel obliged to participate. It is 
ok, if you can't make every meeting.

Andreas

Am 30.03.20 um 10:30 schrieb Marco Bernasocchi:
> Hi all, so far we got
>
> - my proposal
> - Anita I'm ok with it
> - Andreas I'd welcome it
> - Paolo and Tim 0 and warning about possibly achieving the opposite effect.
>
> That is a fair point, I wasn't suggesting having one more person to not
> be "a too small, closed circle", but rather to have more shoulders to
> put work on :)
>
> In any case I'm absolutely open to take back the proposal if nobody is
> really convinced about it :)
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
> On 30.03.20 10:10, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>> Hi Tim, all,
>>
>> Il 30/03/20 00:54, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>>
>>> For my part I apologise for the meetings I have missed - I do try to
>>> make every one, but sometimes life gets in the way.
>> I join Tim in apologizing.
>>
>>> Alternatively we
>>> could introduce a censure clause, obligating PSC members to attend at
>>> minimum e.g. 10/12 meetings per year in order to maintain their status
>>> as PSC member. That is a  'more stick, less carrot' approach, I know,
>>> but the utility of a person being on the PSC diminishes a lot if they
>>> are not attending meetings.
>> I think this is a good idea. Maybe we can put it forward the AGM?
>>
>>> In the old days, when we had a larger PSC,
>>> my soft old brain remembers things being worse, with a lot of juggling
>>> around trying to find meeting times, and long, circular discussions due
>>> to many different points of view. Anyway I voted -0 because I am not
>>> firmly against it, just adding a note of caution that it may not have
>>> the desired outcome.
>> Fully agreed: I'm also not against, but my experience in other bodies
>> tells me that the larger the group the more difficult meetings and
>> decisions become. We have always had a verry open policy, so anybody can
>> join our meetings when interested, so I would not be too worried about
>> being a too small, closed circle.
>> All the best.