[geomoose-psc] RFC-9: Adopt new linting and code formatting rules

[Jim Klassen]

On 6/30/22 13:00, Eli Adam wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:35 AM Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     RFC-4 is why I thought we may need an RFC for this. Since it would supersede what is in the previous RFC. Maybe RFC-4’s codification if the standard was misguided but we’re stuck with it now.
>
>
> After rereading RFC-4, I don't think that we codified any standards in the RFC and were wise enough to make reference to standards (which have already changed once before see /developer/standards vs /docs/style_guide).  Updating the style guide and a simple PSC vote by email or IRC at the next meeting make sense to me but I'd like to hear from others too.
>
>     We could also revise RFC-9 to accept whatever we put
>     into the style guide and the style guide is changed by simple vote.
>
>
> If we did paint ourselves into the corner with RFC-4, I think this is a better path out.  I see it as already falling into the realm of routine project functions.
>

I'm also not seeing how RFC-4 precludes updating the style guide without an RFC.

Although, I also don't see that this discussion is inappropriate for an RFC.  This is a request for comments on a proposal that impacts the project.  Members can comment, propose amendments, and vote to express agreement or disagreement and a RFC seems like the appropriate way to document that process.  I know we've been treating RFCs somewhat equivalent to making a constitutional amendment, but I really don't think a RFC needs to carry that much weight to be useful/valid.

For example, look at the recent MapServer RFCs:

# MS RFC 133: Mapfile Syntax Cleanup <https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-133.html>
# MS RFC 134: OGC API Support <https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-134.html>
# MS RFC 135: MapServer 8.0 Config file <https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-135.html>
# MS RFC 136: Rename shp2img to map2img <https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-136.html>
# MS RFC 137: Native FlatGeobuf support <https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-137.html>

A couple have fairly broad impact, but most of them are fairly trivial in nature, down to renaming a single file.  I think RFCs are better used for documenting the decision making process rather than setting something in stone.  Which is to say, I don't think we need to be afraid of RFCs (as long as we have a functional PSC anyway).  RFCs are cheap, it's just a file and a vote.

And just because I've recently had discussions about implementing Architectural Decision Records for internal projects and realizing they basically serve the same function as RFCs:

https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20220701/8207c55f/attachment.htm>