No subject

with resignations and no removal by arbitrary time-out rule.


Personally I can see the need for a PSC and am willing to help, but to
be honest would rather spend my finite time and energy fixing bugs than
playing politics. We have meetings at work. They are boring and don't
solve much. Some people love scoring points and winning arguments, but
this doesn't help solve any problems. What the meetings do provide is
forced communication, and this is very very important. However the
nature of the GRASS project, being coordinated over a central mailing
list(s), means that communication is usually very good here. The main
communication failures can be avoided if all CVS committers understand
that they must post to grass5 detailing any far-reaching changes days
before doing so (and some understanding by others is needed that it is
often hard to know how big your small change will be when you make it).

Public IRC meetings need to be logged and archived.

I guess I am having problems with what the PSC could do for us as I find
it hard to think of a decision which we have had to make in the past
that would have been better solved using a PSC vs grass5. Can anyone
give examples of decisions that have ended up being weak or never had a
good answer?

e.g. I don't know if a PSC could help solve the problem of 3 different
teams working on 3 different GUIs, all with too light a focus to get
done. We can't stop people but I think it is a shame whenever a lot of
work goes into something that never gets widely used due to bad
integration with the central effort.

some obvious examples that a PSC could help with:
Would a committee decide which widget set to use? (java/gtk+/kde/..)
  (2/3 majority, but majority doesn't work well with >2 answer
questions. auto-transferable voting is great but who'll set it up?)

Would a committee decide if a submitted module should become part of
the main CVS? (2* "+1")

OSGeo stuff (2/3 majority?)


I must admit I'd feel a bit silly voting using the term "I +1 agree".
The exec committee +5 each? Markus have the option to use atomic +20
if he ever feels the need to use it?  (assuming 50 voters) +inf+1?
Very hard to ever get the balance right with people coming and going;
1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class voters is a bit unfriendly; we should
have the balls to make decisions ourselves instead of hiding behind some
complex algorithm that forces an answer.

I do see the need for some unambiguous code-word like "I concur".


that's all
Hamish