[Fwd: Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder]
arnulf.christl at wheregroup.com
Wed Mar 21 17:51:25 EDT 2007
inside this slightly tofued stack of information you find a suggestion to
define a project by saying that it is "the OSGeo branded one" to
differentiate it form other projects that might share (use improperly or
steal or misuse) the name.
Helena suggests that "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."
I think this is a good idea so if anybody feels like extending our
branding as a means to define the scope of a project go ahead. We come to
the same topic (trademarking) from another perspective. One of the reasons
I am still reluctant whether it is good to merge VisCom and WebCom. For
some reason WebCom to me seems more operational while VisCom is more
visionary in its scope (hence the name). Hmmm. Try to say this without
crosspostspamming all lists...
I really love the GRASSroot style of doing things. It gives me tranquility.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder
From: "Helena Mitasova" <hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu>
Date: Wed, March 21, 2007 20:11
To: "Paul Kelly" <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk>
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
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.
>> 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, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my
>> subscription meanwhile.
>> Helena Mitasova
>> 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
>>> +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
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc at grass.itc.it
More information about the grass-psc