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

Hamish hamish_nospam at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 30 23:07:53 EDT 2006

> > +0 indicates mild support but not to the degree of being willing to
> > help implement the feature or take any responsibility.
> > 
> > -0 indicates mild disagreement, but not sufficient to try and stop
> > (veto) the proposal.  A -0 also does not require significant
> > justification.  It can be just a statement if mild unease with the
> > idea.
> > 
> > Neither has any effect on tie breaking.  I would stress that the
> > "lazy consensus" model of Apache, MapServer and GDAL is not about
> > "close votes" it is about reaching consensus with veto overrides
> > only being a last resort.
> I realize it's intended purpose, but if it has no real function beyond
> "metadata" I'm against it.  It'll only muddle issues of contention.

I don't agree -- Anything that can provide a better understanding of
what the community thinks can only help to create a better outcome -
especially when dealing with "issues of contention." Otherwise we just
guess and do what our own preference is.

Endless 7 page diatribes from dozens of folks about the philosophical
reasons for choosing a, b, or c gets to be too much to digest, the
beauty of something like +/-0 is that you just have to read the author &
the abstract ;).


More information about the grass-dev mailing list