[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Helena Mitasova]

On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Helena
> Yes, I got your earlier e-mail - sorry I didn't realise it hadn't  
> gone to the list.
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in  
> the future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying  
> it - and good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind  
> of chicken and egg situation - we have to have this document  
> correct and the PSC properly in place for GRASS to be accepted as  
> an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't seem right to include that in  
> there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was saying earlier we could  
> update the PSC later to change things like this then that could be  
> done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's viewpoint that the  
> GRASS project paragraph should just describe unambiguously at this  
> moment in time which project is being governed by the PSC and  
> brought into OSGeo.
>
> Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.

you are right - it would be good for this vote to include what is  
GRASS right now (then I would say -
Markus let us know what do you think would be best to use -  
Intevation CVS link or your foundation
or both?)
After we become official OSGeo project we can develop a more long  
term definition - maybe OSGeo will have some guidance
that will be useful for all projects.

Helena
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes I agree now it's good to make this clear - and Scott's proposed  
> amendment does this nicely I think.
>
> Paul
>
>> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my  
>> subscription meanwhile.
>>
>> Helena
>>
>> Helena Mitasova
>> Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
>> 1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
>> Raleigh NC 27695
>> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>> removed.
>>> 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  
>>> surrounding
>>> -development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently  
>>> headquarted
>>> -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 :)
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> grass-psc at grass.itc.it
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
>>