MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hi everyone,

sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.

I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:

Denis Rykov
Johannes Weskamm
Just van den Broecke
Matt Walker
Oliver Tonnhofer
Ramūnas Dronga
Tom Kralidis

Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?


Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities

The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)

I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)

I'm quite open to all of these options.

[0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository


Regards,
Oliver

--
Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com







_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Tom Kralidis
Hi Oliver: thanks very much for moving this forward.  Our organization
(Meteorological Service
of Canada) uses MapProxy in production for national applications,
providing accelerated maps
of our real-time WMS of radar and numerical weather prediction data.

We recently funded the WMS Dimension caching work [1], and I'm
interested in seeing MapProxy
sustained over the very long term with PSC governance and continued
active/healthy participation
and contributions.

Note I am also interested on future development regarding the evolving
OGC API efforts regarding
Maps and Tiles, and integration with other geopython projects such as pygeoapi.

Cheers

..Tom

[1] https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/pull/449

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:16 AM Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
dr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

dr
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hi folks!

I've been using MapProxy for about 8 years in different side projects. It helped me so much in so many different use cases. I really like its great architecture, clean code and amazing documentation.

Thanks Oliver for the opportunity to participate in the future of MapProxy.

Denis

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:16 PM Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone,

sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.

I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:

Denis Rykov
Johannes Weskamm
Just van den Broecke
Matt Walker
Oliver Tonnhofer
Ramūnas Dronga
Tom Kralidis

Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?


Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities

The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)

I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)

I'm quite open to all of these options.

[0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository


Regards,
Oliver

--
Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com







_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Ramūnas Dronga
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hi all,
mapproxy is a great project and we've been using it for last 5 years mainly for proxying state based services to OSM community. During that time we introduced a completely new caching backend for distributed data store Riak, did several other minor improvements and fixes. Our future plan is to add more high load oriented caching backends, to improve performance and python3 compatibility.

Thanks Oliver for this new initiative, the new beginning of development.

Best,
Ramunas

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 15:16, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone,

sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.

I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:

Denis Rykov
Johannes Weskamm
Just van den Broecke
Matt Walker
Oliver Tonnhofer
Ramūnas Dronga
Tom Kralidis

Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?


Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities

The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)

I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)

I'm quite open to all of these options.

[0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository


Regards,
Oliver

--
Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com







_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev


--
Best Regards / Pagarbiai,
Ramūnas
+37060047423

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Just van den Broecke
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hello All,

And sorry for my delayed answer.

I work as an independent within Open Source Spatial under the company
name Just Objects [0]. I am also chair of OSGeo.nl [1] the Dutch local
chapter.

Fan and user of MapProxy about 10 years, running MP professionally for
my map service Map5 [2] and various other projects.

I am developer within several (geopython) projects: Stetl
(founder/lead), GeoHealthCheck (lead) and pygeoapi (also in PSC), all
within the GeoPython GitHub org [3].

I have an interest in letting MP blossom and grow. Not just as I run MP
professionally but also given recent developments in OGC REST APIs and
their realization within the pygeoapi project (as Tom mentioned). We're
looking into MP integration there.

[0] https://justobjects.nl
[1] https://osgeo.nl
[2] https://map5.nl
[3] https://github.com/geopython

Kind regards,

--Just

Just van den Broecke  [hidden email]
Just Objects B.V.     tel +31 65 4268627
The Netherlands       https://justobjects.nl


On 13-05-20 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Matt Walker-2
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hi all,

I've been using and making small contributions to MapProxy for almost 10 years now.

At Astun Technology we use MapProxy to provide national tile and WMS services mainly serving Ordnance Survey GB data to thousands of users. We also regularly use MapProxy in client projects either directly or indirectly (dynamic tile cache during dev/ static cache in production).

Along with some minor bug fixes I've been involved in implementing the decorate image API to allow response images to be updated on the fly and I made a start on the S3 backend :-)

Huge thank you to Oliver and the team at Omniscale for their considerable effort over the years.

I'm looking forward to seeing MapProxy continue to evolve.

Kind regards,

Matt.



On Wed, 13 May 2020, 13:16 Oliver Tonnhofer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone,

sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.

I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:

Denis Rykov
Johannes Weskamm
Just van den Broecke
Matt Walker
Oliver Tonnhofer
Ramūnas Dronga
Tom Kralidis

Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?


Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities

The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)

I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)

I'm quite open to all of these options.

[0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository


Regards,
Oliver

--
Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com







_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Johannes Weskamm
In reply to this post by Just van den Broecke
Hi all,


I am now back from my holidays and can finally join the discussion.

I am working at terrestris for about ten years as software developer and
since the beginning we are using MapProxy for several projects and
customers.

Together with Oliver we developed several features for our customers,
which were given back to the community.

At our company we are using MapProxy for our free OpenStreetMap WMS
(https://www.terrestris.de/en/openstreetmap-wms/) and several other
services and MapProxy is doing a great job there for years now!

I would like to see MapProxy grow further in the future and will try to
support it where i can. As a software developer i will of course try to
adapt to the code, even if i am still learning python as language.


Regards,


Johannes


> On 13-05-20 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>
>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC.
>> All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also
>> contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>
>> Denis Rykov
>> Johannes Weskamm
>> Just van den Broecke
>> Matt Walker
>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>> Ramūnas Dronga
>> Tom Kralidis
>>
>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you
>> are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses
>> MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>
>>
>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a
>> look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines
>> which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer,
>> OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities:
>> https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>
>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two
>> days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor
>> changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is
>> just one command away.)
>>
>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests?
>> Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for
>> each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on
>> the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention
>> that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this
>> PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is
>> enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>
>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>
>> [0]
>> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapProxy PSC, RFCs and GitHub PR

Johannes Weskamm
Hi,


To get things rolling again:

I personally agree on the PSC guidelines and have understood the
responsibilities.

Regarding Pull Requests and PSC voting: Maybe we can add a clarification
about the process to the PR template on github, so that the person that
creates the PR knows that this will be reviewed and voted before it may
get merged.

Voting itself could also happen on github.

In depth discussion about features / changes and their integration may
still happen on the mailinglist, but this is just an idea.

What do the others think?


Greetings,

Johannes


>> On 13-05-20 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>>
>>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC.
>>> All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also
>>> contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>>
>>> Denis Rykov
>>> Johannes Weskamm
>>> Just van den Broecke
>>> Matt Walker
>>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>>> Ramūnas Dronga
>>> Tom Kralidis
>>>
>>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you
>>> are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses
>>> MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>>
>>>
>>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a
>>> look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines
>>> which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer,
>>> OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities:
>>> https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>>
>>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two
>>> days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor
>>> changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is
>>> just one command away.)
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests?
>>> Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for
>>> each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on
>>> the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention
>>> that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this
>>> PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is
>>> enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>>
>>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Oliver
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MapProxy-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Oliver Tonnhofer-5
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Hi all,

thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.

I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.

I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".

Finally my vote: +1

Kind regards,
Oliver

> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Tom Kralidis
+1

..Tom

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:36 AM Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>
> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.
>
> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".
>
> Finally my vote: +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
> > On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
> >
> > I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
> >
> > Denis Rykov
> > Johannes Weskamm
> > Just van den Broecke
> > Matt Walker
> > Oliver Tonnhofer
> > Ramūnas Dronga
> > Tom Kralidis
> >
> > Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
> >
> >
> > Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> > Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
> >
> > The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
> >
> > I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
> >
> > I'm quite open to all of these options.
> >
> > [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oliver
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> > OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Ramūnas Dronga
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
+1

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 12:36, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.

I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.

I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".

Finally my vote: +1

Kind regards,
Oliver

> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev


--
Best Regards / Pagarbiai,
Ramūnas
+37060047423

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Just van den Broecke
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
+1
Just van den Broecke

On 24-08-20 11:28, Oliver Tonnhofer wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>
> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.
>
> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".
>
> Finally my vote: +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
>> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>
>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>
>> Denis Rykov
>> Johannes Weskamm
>> Just van den Broecke
>> Matt Walker
>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>> Ramūnas Dronga
>> Tom Kralidis
>>
>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>
>>
>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>
>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>>
>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>
>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>
>> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
>> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
>
_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Matt Walker-2
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
+1

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, 10:36 Oliver Tonnhofer, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.

I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.

I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".

Finally my vote: +1

Kind regards,
Oliver

> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Johannes Weskamm
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
+1


Greets,

Johannes


Am 24.08.20 um 11:28 schrieb Oliver Tonnhofer:

> Hi all,
>
> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>
> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.
>
> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".
>
> Finally my vote: +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
>> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>
>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>
>> Denis Rykov
>> Johannes Weskamm
>> Just van den Broecke
>> Matt Walker
>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>> Ramūnas Dronga
>> Tom Kralidis
>>
>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>
>>
>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>
>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>>
>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>
>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>
>> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
>> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

--
  Dipl.-Geogr. Johannes Weskamm
  — Anwendungsentwickler —

  terrestris GmbH & Co. KG
  Kölnstraße 99
  53111 Bonn

  Tel: +49 (0)228 / 96 28 99 -555
  Fax: +49 (0)228 / 96 28 99 -57

  Email: [hidden email]
  Web: https://www.terrestris.de

  Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6835
  Komplementärin: terrestris Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH
  vertreten durch: Torsten Brassat, Marc Jansen
 
  Informationen über Ihre gespeicherten Daten finden Sie auf
  unserer Homepage unter folgendem Link:
  https://www.terrestris.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ 

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
dr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

dr
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
+1

Best,
Denis

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:36 AM Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.

I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.

I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".

Finally my vote: +1

Kind regards,
Oliver

> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>
> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>
> Denis Rykov
> Johannes Weskamm
> Just van den Broecke
> Matt Walker
> Oliver Tonnhofer
> Ramūnas Dronga
> Tom Kralidis
>
> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>
>
> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>
> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>
> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>
> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>
> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Oliver Tonnhofer-5
In reply to this post by Oliver Tonnhofer-5
Thank you all. We have a +1 from everyone. We now officially have a PSC.
I've updated the guidelines: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines
You should all have received an invitation from GitHub to join the PCS team (or Core, as I renamed the team to PSC after I sent the invitations).

Kind regards,
Oliver


> On 24. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>
> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.
>
> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".
>
> Finally my vote: +1
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
>> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>
>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>
>> Denis Rykov
>> Johannes Weskamm
>> Just van den Broecke
>> Matt Walker
>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>> Ramūnas Dronga
>> Tom Kralidis
>>
>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>
>>
>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>
>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>>
>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>
>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>
>> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
>> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: VOTE for MapProxy PSC guidelines

Oliver Tonnhofer-5
New pull requests have now a note about the PSC and the voting/RFC process in the PR template.

The file is here https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/blob/master/.github/pull_request_template.md but you need to click on raw to see the actual content, as it is a Markdown comment.

Please let me know if you like to make any changes (or make the edits yourself).


Here is a copy of the text:

MapProxy is governed by a [Project Steering Committee (PSC)][1].
The PSC makes decisions on all aspects of the MapProxy project - both technical and non-technical.
Most decisions require a vote by the PSC on the [mapproxy-dev mailing list][2].

Please contact the [mapproxy-dev list][2] with a Request For Change (RFC) proposal if your pull request matches any item below:

- Changes to project infrastructure (e.g. tool, location or substantive configuration)
- Anything that could cause backward compatibility issues.
- Adding substantial amounts of new code.
- Changing inter-subsystem APIs, or objects.
- Anything that might be controversial.

You can read more about the voting process in the [PSC Guidelines][2].

[1]: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines
[2]: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev


> On 2. Sep 2020, at 09:48, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thank you all. We have a +1 from everyone. We now officially have a PSC.
> I've updated the guidelines: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines
> You should all have received an invitation from GitHub to join the PCS team (or Core, as I renamed the team to PSC after I sent the invitations).
>
> Kind regards,
> Oliver
>
>
>> On 24. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> thank you all for your introductions and apologies for the slow progress.
>>
>> I'd like to start a final vote, since there were no objections to the PCS guidelines. Please +1 if you agree to the guidelines, agree to become a PSC member and agree to all other new committee members.
>>
>> I will update the guidelines with the member list when the votes are in. I will also make sure that everyone gets permissions on GitHub as needed. Also, FYI: I plan to meet with Johannes later this year (as we are both from Germany) to review and document the testing and release process to increase the "bus number".
>>
>> Finally my vote: +1
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>>> On 13. May 2020, at 14:10, Oliver Tonnhofer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> sorry for the slow progress on the PSC.
>>>
>>> I'm happy that we now have a list of seven candidates for the PSC. All of you are long time users of MapProxy and most of you also contributed in the past. So far we have:
>>>
>>> Denis Rykov
>>> Johannes Weskamm
>>> Just van den Broecke
>>> Matt Walker
>>> Oliver Tonnhofer
>>> Ramūnas Dronga
>>> Tom Kralidis
>>>
>>> Maybe you can all introduce yourself with 2-3 sentences on how you are using MapProxy, your affiliation with a company that uses MapProxy, do you have any plans within your PSC membership?
>>>
>>>
>>> Next step is, that we all agree on the PSC guidelines. Please take a look at https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines which is more a less a copy of the guidelines from MapServer, OpenLayers and PyGeoAPI.
>>> Make sure you all understood the responsibilities: https://github.com/mapproxy/mapproxy/wiki/PSC-Guidelines#membership-responsibilities
>>>
>>> The only major change is that I increased the review period from two days to five business days. I think two days is quite short. (Minor changes aren't affected by the voting process anyways and a revert is just one command away.)
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure how we should handle GitHub issues & pull requests? Do we want to keep all discussion on this list? Do we want an RFC for each PR? Would be it be OK if the PR is the RFC and we only vote on the mailing list? Should we just add a PR template [0] and mention that they should write to the mailing list if they want to bring this PR forward? (Otherwise they would need to wait till one of us is enough interested in the PR to make an RFC on their own.)
>>>
>>> I'm quite open to all of these options.
>>>
>>> [0] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> --
>>> Oliver Tonnhofer  | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG  | https://omniscale.com
>>> OpenStreetMap WMS and tile services         | https://maps.omniscale.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
MapProxy-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy-dev