[GRASS-user] RE: PSC: Nominations
paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk
Thu Aug 17 15:56:27 EDT 2006
Sampson, David wrote:
> I have forwarded this post to the grass-user list.
> Most PSC discussion is occuring on that list to include the widest
> variety of idea generators.
> Great points you brought us, perhaps the community can address them
Well, looks like there are no good answers yet. But that's
understandable - it looks like we have to wait for the steering
committee to get going and discuss the issues I suppose.
I think being a full part of OSGeo is probably a good idea, possibly
more for political reasons than technical really, which I suppose is a
messy area to be getting into---but we're already there e.g. with
talking about having to have 6.2.0 released in time for the FOSS4G2006
conference in September so it doesn't matter!
So while even though I'm not at all sure what this nomination process
actually means, I would hate to think that anything I could do might
hold back or delay GRASS's progress, and so I'll accept the
nomination---in anticipation that my slight concerns will be addressed
and that the decision-making process that takes place on the developers'
mailing list is not going to change that much, *except* for very
difficult or stalled issues (which currently tend to end up unresolvable!).
I'm sure I will have issues with the amount of time I'll be able to
devote to it (not much) - but 15 minutes a week as was mentioned
elsewhere by Frank I think certainly sounds reasonable.
Also, I meant to send this e-mail weeks ago, but kind of forgot/ never
got round to it. I don't expect it to make much difference to things but
it was a loose end I wanted to tidy up!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kelly [mailto:paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk]
> Sent: July 31, 2006 18:09
> To: Sampson, David
> Cc: grass-dev at grass.itc.it
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-user] RE: PSC: Nominations
> Hello David
> (CC to grass-dev as I feel the discussion is more relevant there; feel
> free to move back to user list if you have relevant follow-up comments)
> There was a lot of very good discussion about the PSC on the grass-dev
> list around the end of April. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to
> contribute then as I was very busy with other work. But a lot of very
> sensible and meaningful contributions were made to the discussion at
> that stage by everyone and they don't need to be repeated.
> The stumbling block as I see it is disagreement over the meaning of the
> concentric decision-making proposal with PSC at the centre, surrounded
> by developers with CVS write access, surrounded by users. This seems to
> assume that the PSC are all major contributors with CVS write access,
> which (a) doesn't look like it's going to happen and (b) may not even be
> the best way anyway; I'm not sure.
> What I do think needs serious clarification is the voting or other means
> of making decisions on the proposals put forward by the PSC. There are a
> few options for this:
> Glynn proposed that developers who understand certain areas of the code
> better than others should have more authority over changes made it that
> area. This sounds good and is very like the way we work at present, but
> of course there are always bits that aren't maintained from time to time
> and bits that nobody really understands! But I would strongly hope that
> the "moral authority" certain developers have over certain bits of the
> code will not be undermined by the new decision making mechanism,
> whatever it is.
> Markus's proposal is the +1, 0-, 0+ etc. voting system on proposals put
> forward by the PSC. I think this could be workable, but the following
> two points need to be addressed:
> * Only decisions that have a relatively clear resultant course of action
> should be voted on like this (i.e. not hazy or vague issues were we
> aren't totally sure what the decision actually means in practice)
> * Who gets a vote needs a lot of clarification. I like Radim's idea that
> anybody who has made a subtantial contribution to the code has a voice
> here. I think it would be very important to incorporate something like
> that to prevent people feeling disenfranchised.
> FWIW I am certainly Willing to do the +1 -0 +0 etc. voting thing, and
> would try my best to read proposals in the time available. At this time
> I'm not willing to commit to a lot more time (although I *may* be able
> to; it just depends on circumstances).
> So there you go - no yes or no on the PSC nomination from me, and just
> more questions really :/ Sorry... :)
More information about the grass-user