[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder
hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu
Wed Mar 21 14:34:55 EDT 2007
I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo
project" which makes
it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will ensure
that it does not
get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there will
be only one
GRASS recognized by OSGeo.
but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I get
all the emails but cannot post to the list.
Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly
that the members
of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as if
they were appointed or selfdeclared.
Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> Thanks for your response to this.
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just
> remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the
> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important.
> Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything
> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the
> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:
> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether
> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way of
> being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative to
> "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
> --- RFC1_PSC.dox 12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000 1.5
> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox 21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
> "The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software
> known as the
> Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the
> -development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently
> -at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.
> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently
> hosted (as
> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
> +Osnabrück, Germany.
> \section tor Terms of Reference
> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody
> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the
> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting changed
> - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is de facto
> defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and if these
> are changed then that is a significant change and it's not
> unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about
> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really
> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we
> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody
> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that
> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into
>> being. In our
>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or
>> unlimited term?
> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines
> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting
> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that
> was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is what
> really determines that, as I understand it. And there deliberately
> is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term of service -
> changes to composition are just handled from now on by voting on
> the PSC list.
> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's
> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS,
> mailing lists and website. So as long as the current maintainers of
> those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in
> accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's enough, I think.
> Maybe this should be more explicit?
> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it
> a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the
> list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that
> we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be
> official guidance documents for the operation of the PSC. And with
> the four working days - we have until 7:30pm Central European Time
> on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.
> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting
> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will
> do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what I
> meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is any dispute.
> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel
> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to
> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you
> do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS much
> better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by all
> means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes a bit
> meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come
> across like that :)
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at grass.itc.it
More information about the grass-psc