[GRASS5] Proposal: RFC 1: Project Steering Committee Guidelines

[Glynn Clements]

Hamish wrote:

> A system where 50 people have voting rights and it only takes 2* +1
> votes to pass something clearly has problems. Two people could pass a
> strange idea before anyone else notices and then the result is ignored..
> Ok, then it could be buried but then what was the point of the 2* +1
> rule? Leave votes open for 5 days? Do Glynn's votes on raster matters
> and Radim's votes on vector matters count more than mine? (honestly they
> probably should..) Do I get veto rights on stuff which I am the primary
> or sole author of?

I think that we need to assume a reasonable level of objectivity
amongst developers, i.e. that people will generally tend to defer to
those with either more competence or a greater stake in the outcome.

> I must admit I'd feel a bit silly voting using the term "I +1 agree".
> The exec committee +5 each? Markus have the option to use atomic +20
> if he ever feels the need to use it?  (assuming 50 voters) +inf+1?
> Very hard to ever get the balance right with people coming and going;
> 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class voters is a bit unfriendly; we should
> have the balls to make decisions ourselves instead of hiding behind some
> complex algorithm that forces an answer.

In terms of "last resort" options, whoever can grant or revoke CVS
access always has the final say. And with GRASS being GPL, anyone else
can always start their own alternative version.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>