[GRASS5] Proposal: RFC 1: Project Steering Committee Guidelines
radim.blazek at gmail.com
Thu Apr 27 11:31:40 EDT 2006
On 4/27/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
> Radim Blazek wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I think that all contributors should have a possibility to vote not only
> > PSC members. I don't see any point in delegating votes from
> > about 10 persons to some 5 PSC members. Why people doing
> > a lot of work for GRASS who don't have time for or don't want to become
> > PSC members should not participate in decision process?
> > My proposal is that PSC prepares only a question for voting
> > and all 'contributors with vote' can vote about it. The proposal
> > passes if majority of 'contributors with vote' votes for the
> > proposal (clear majority, no vetos).
> Well, "contributors that can vote" *are* the PSC.
Then PSC will not be very operational. Often when we are discussing
something in the list everybody add his opinion and wishes so that
it the issue becomes vague. I thought that the role of PSC
would be to pick up important questions and well formulate them for
voting which can be better done in smaller group.
> I would caution against setting things up where you need to wait for
> a quorum. That is, where you depend on actually hearing back from
> a majority of members.
I absolutely agree and I dont say we should wait for all voting contributors.
I mean the majority of persons who voted not of all who can vote.
> In my experience this can cause "stallage"
> unless folks are quite diligent about responding to each proposal. The
> approach defined with two +1's in two business days is called lazy
> consensus by Apache. Basically folks need to object if they have an
> issue otherwise things proceed normally. I think for most matters this
> is much smoother than requiring a full vote.
Why using the majority is not smooth?
I think that two business days is too short in any case, I would suggest 1 week.
> You mention "no vetoes". The intention of the veto rule is that if
> someone feels strongly enough to vote again a proposal it is likely
> worth trying to revise the proposal to address their concerns. But there
> is always the option of a second vote to override the veto, this
> requiring an absolute majority of eligible votes. The intent is to aim
> for consensus, but with a mechanism to settle things if that cannot be
It can be problem to get majority of eligible votes if PSC should include
> Please note that I am just trying to explain the rationale why things
> are done the way they are currently in MapServer (and in most/all Apache
> projects as I understand it). GRASS is well within it's rights to
> use it's own voting mechanism.
> > 'Contributors with vote' will be all contributors (not only developers)
> > who did substantial contributions to the project. Initialy it can be persons
> > mentioned as candidates for PSC. New 'contributors with vote'
> > can be accepted by voting.
> I don't see any reason not to name all existing committers, and other
> substantive contributors to the PSC as long as they are willing/interested.
> As long as you don't need full votes very often a large-ish PSC is not a
> bad thing (IMHO). I think PSC's in Apache are literally all the developers
> with commit privileges.
IIRC Glynn already declined to participate in PSC. I dont know if he
wants to vote about important issues but I believe that he should have
a possibility. My impression so far was that PSC will not include all
At least here http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass61progman/rfc/rfc1_psc.html
is clearly divided 'The GRASS Steering Committee' and
'The GRASS Developers' and there is also written that
'This group votes for the members of the GRASS PSC.' (developers).
That is why I asked to give vote to all contributors.
> Best regards,
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org
More information about the grass-dev