I think it would be somewhat short sighted to simply pick those who have already been nominated to fill in the PSC. I believe the goal of selecting the 4 additional members was to gain targeted domain knowledge is specific fields. Such as remote sensing, the disaster community, etc. I agree everyone nominated was more then qualified to serve on the steering committee, however I feel they don't represent a wide enough range of expertise. It would seem reasonable for the elected steering committee to identify the additional areas of expertise that can help move the project forward, or for such a discussion to take place on the list. Once the committee has decided on the specific knowledge bases that need to be tapped, I'm sure the community can help find the right people. This would seem like an opportunity to attract additional human resources to the project.
To get things started we seem to have good representation from: Open Data and Open GeoSpatial Community (Bitner, Erle, Maron) Humanitarian and Disaster Response (Crowley, Giovando) I would suggest we need additional expertise in: Remote Sensing (Make sure this is useful to the RS community and not just another Tile Server) Computation and Systems Architecture (To help avoid potential pitfalls and identify cost saving data structures and algorithms for processing) Government (someone to represent govt interested and help push adoption) Research Community / Academics (research was a core idea in the foundation of OAM) Please expand, debate, etc... - Charlie. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Schuyler Erle <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you all for participating in the provisional OAM PSC election > process. The original stated intention was to invite the community to > select five individuals to serve, and then for them to select by > consensus four additional individuals. This two-part process was meant > to ensure that there was room to balance representation on the PSC of > all of the likely stakeholders in the project. > > Well, there are five other deserving candidates on the slate. Back when > there were only nine in total, I thought about proposing that we simply > accept the nominees by acclamation, but I didn't want to confuse matters > at the time. In any event, all 10 of the nominees to the PSC are > well-known, trustworthy, and qualified (if I may say so). > > Now, maybe 10 PSC members is starting to get a little unwieldy, but > perhaps it would be simplest to start there. Consensus decision making > works best with smaller numbers, but you can go up to about a dozen and > still have it still work, if everyone's committed to the process. > > So, if anyone on that list has second thoughts about serving, now would > be a good time to mention them. Alternately, if people feel like 10 is > too many, I'd be willing to step down to accommodate the other nominees, > so we can get this show on the road. :) > > I realize that this proposal may make the voting seem redundant, but I > think the original nominee list is actually pretty balanced. I'm not > even particularly concerned about it either, considering that, if we > fully adopt the consensus model, no single party should be able to run > away with the decision making process. > > So how do you all feel about that idea of voting in the remaining five > by acclamation? More to the point, does anyone have any questions or > concerns about this proposal? > > SDE > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
