<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=591564517-02112006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>+1</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Jason Birch
[mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 02, 2006
10:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText211 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Unfortunately, I'm not used
to process yet and forgot to define the timeline for the motion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that it should be by default 1 week
from seconding of motion, with the option to define as short a period as 48
hours for important stuff. Of course if everyone votes it would close
earlier.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, I saw on the FDO list that they
extended the IRC veto to 48 hours to deal with timezone issues.I think that this
is a good idea.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'll add these items to today's meeting
minutes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jason</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idSignature83903 dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT size=2>
<DIV></FONT></FONT>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Daniel Morissette
[mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thu 2006-11-02 4:33
AM<BR><B>To:</B> psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [mapguide-psc]
PSC vs DEV list<BR></FONT><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>I'm not voting since I'm only an observer on the PSC, but I'm
glad to<BR>see the issue has been addressed so quickly.
:)<BR><BR>Daniel<BR><BR><BR>Paul Spencer wrote:<BR>> +1<BR>><BR>> On
2-Nov-06, at 4:28 AM, Haris Kurtagic wrote:<BR>><BR>>>
+1<BR>>><BR>>> From: Bruce Dechant [<A
href="mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com">mailto:bruce.dechant@autodesk.com</A>]<BR>>>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:10 AM<BR>>> To:
psc@mapguide.osgeo.org; psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR>>> Subject: RE:
[mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV list<BR>>><BR>>> +1<BR>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: Andy Morsell [<A
href="mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com">mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com</A>]<BR>>>
Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 7:33 PM<BR>>> To: psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR>>>
Cc:<BR>>> Subject: RE: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV
list<BR>>><BR>>> +1. I guess I should subscribe to the dev
list now..........<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
Andy<BR>>><BR>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: Robert
Bray [<A
href="mailto:rbray@robertbray.net">mailto:rbray@robertbray.net</A>]<BR>>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 6:27 PM<BR>>> To:
psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR>>> Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV
list<BR>>><BR>>> I'll second and +1.<BR>>><BR>>>
Bob<BR>>><BR>>> Jason Birch wrote:<BR>>> > Given the lack
of objections, I'd like to move to archive the PSC list<BR>>> > and
move all future discussions to the DEV list.<BR>>> ><BR>>> >
Consider this a +1 once somebody second's.<BR>>> ><BR>>> >
Jason<BR>>> ><BR>>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>>>
> From: Daniel Morissette [<A
href="mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com">mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com</A>]<BR>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 13:10<BR>>> > To:
psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR>>> > Subject: [mapguide-psc] PSC vs DEV
list<BR>>> ><BR>>> > After seeing the discussions on RFC-1
split between the PSC and DEV<BR>>> > lists, it seems to me that having
split PSC and DEV lists results in<BR>>> > duplicate messages for those
on both lists and on partial threads for<BR>>> > those only on one
list. In both cases that's no good. Am I the only<BR>>> > one to think
this way?<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Would we not be better with just one
list? Or if we insist on having<BR>>> > two lists then discuss RFCs and
all technical issues to the -dev list<BR>>> > *only* (including the
vote), with the understanding that PSC members<BR>>> > are required to
follow the -dev list?<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Daniel<BR>>> >
--<BR>>> > Daniel Morissette<BR>>> > <A
href="http://www.mapgears.com/">http://www.mapgears.com/</A><BR>>>
><BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+<BR>>
|Paul
Spencer
pspencer@dmsolutions.ca |<BR>>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+<BR>>
|Chief Technology
Officer
|<BR>> |DM Solutions Group
Inc
<A href="http://www.dmsolutions.ca/">http://www.dmsolutions.ca/</A> |<BR>>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Daniel
Morissette<BR><A
href="http://www.mapgears.com/">http://www.mapgears.com/</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>