[GRASS5] Proposal: RFC 1: Project Steering Committee Guidelines

Markus Neteler neteler at itc.it
Fri Apr 28 04:33:10 EDT 2006

Radim Blazek wrote:

>On 4/28/06, Helena Mitasova <hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>you may want to add some clarification when a proposal is needed to
>>make a change
>>(it is partially implied by a section about when vote is needed, but
>>maybe that should be defined somewhere
>>at the beginning of the detailed process description - or you can
>>just say "When is the proposal and vote required").
>>How the proposal should look like?
>>Is a short email to developers list, as we have now enough - I hope
>>it is.
>>Regarding Radim's comments - let us try to follow the suggestions
>>from Markus and Frank modeled
>>after other projects to see whether it works for us, we can always
>>change it / modify later
>I tried to explain that a result of the procedure proposed by Markus and Frank
>can depend on question formulation and obviously such procedure
>is not democratic.
>I am strongly in favour of democratic procedures used in GRASS
>decision making.
>The argument that other projects prefer less democratic procedures
>is not valid for me.
>The attitude 'to see whether it works for us' is wrong in my opinion
>because certainly it will work, it simply cannot fail, but the results
>can be deformed and some people can be discouraged.
>Less democratic procedures always work better but overall
>results are worse.

mhh, I don't remember that I suggested to implement non-democratic
structures (didn't I post a
*proposal*?). Remember, that also in a democracy rules are established
and to be followed.
Of course it is a process to reach consensus, hopefully we can avoid
flame wars.

The *idea* of having a steering committee is to have an accepted body to
strategic decisions. Certainly this body needs to be established and
controled by the

At least I am happy to finally see discussion on this issue now,


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

More information about the grass-dev mailing list