|Version 4 (modified by ticheler, 6 years ago)|
Project Steering Committee
During the Second GeoNetwork Workshop in April 2006, held in Rome - Italy, an advisory board, or hereafter the Project Steering Committee (PSC) was established. The PSC meets on a yearly basis to discuss the requirements of the participating agencies and to define a work plan for the following year. The meeting is open to all members & interested parties of the GeoNetwork opensource Community. Working group sessions are organized to gather project requirements and to come up with a work plan. The workshop will also provide technical sessions around the GeoNetwork opensource software and where possible around related software.
The day to day management of the project is left to the chair of the PSC. The chair is charged with the day to day management of the project. He will seek consensus within the developer and user community and is responsible for the implementation of the work plan.
A goal set out by the PSC is to make the community building process and inclusive, consensus based effort. The PSC agreed to have the project go through the incubation process of the OSGeo Foundation to establish it as a full OSGeo project.
Members of the PSC
- Jeroen Ticheler ( FAO-UN) - Chair
- Menghestab Haile ( WFP)
- Sean Khan ( UNEP)
- Suha Ulgen ( UN OCHA)
- Robert Zomer ( CSI-CGIAR)
- Pierre Lagarde ( BRGM)
Project Management Committee Guidelines
Author: Jeroen Ticheler
Status: Draft proposal
This document describes how the GeoNetwork Project Management Committee determines membership, and makes decisions on GeoNetwork opensource project issues.
In brief the committee votes on proposals on the geonetwork-dev mailinglist. Proposals are available for review for at least two days, and a single veto is sufficient to delay progress though ultimately a majority of members can pass a proposal.
- Proposals are written up and submitted on the geonetwork-dev mailing list for discussion and voting, by any interested party, not just committee members.
- Proposals need to be available for review for at least two business days before a final decision can be made.
- Respondents may vote "+1" to indicate support for the proposal and a willingness to support implementation.
- Respondents may vote "-1" to veto a proposal, but must provide clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two days.
- A vote of -0 indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A 0 indicates no opinion. A +0 indicate mild support, but has no effect.
- Anyone may comment on proposals on the list, but only members of the Project Management Committee's votes will be counted.
- A proposal will be accepted if it receives +2 (including the proposer) and no vetos (-1).
- If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in which a majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient to pass it. Note that this is a majority of all committee members, not just those who actively vote.
- Upon completion of discussion and voting the proposer should announce whether they are proceeding (proposal accepted) or are withdrawing their proposal (vetoed).
- The Chair gets a vote.
- The Chair is responsible for keeping track of who is a member of the Project Management Committee.
- Addition and removal of members from the committee, as well as selection of a Chair should be handled as a proposal to the committee. The selection of a new Chair also requires approval of the OSGeo board.
- The Chair adjudicates in cases of disputes about voting.
When is Vote Required?
- Anything that could cause backward compatibility issues.
- Adding substantial amounts of new code.
- Changing inter-subsystem APIs, or objects.
- Issues of procedure.
- When releases should take place.
- Anything that might be controversial.
- The Chair is the ultimate adjudicator if things break down.
- The absolute majority rule can be used to override an obstructionist veto, but it is intended that in normal circumstances vetoers need to be convinced to withdraw their veto. We are trying to reach consensus.