[GRASS-PSC] Open issues

Paul Kelly paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk
Wed Dec 6 07:50:00 EST 2006

Hello Markus,
Sorry for the lack of response from me on these important issues; I've 
been travelling around a lot these last two weeks and when I have had time 
to get at e-mail this hasn't been the most urgent thing so haven't been 
following it thoroughly. But...

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Markus Neteler wrote:

> Dear PSC,
> my list of pressing open issues is as follows:
> a) chair motion to be completed;

I am certainly in favour of you being the chair, especially if you are 
happy to do it! ;) My only concern is that I feel a primary aim of the PSC 
should be to spread some of the workload and it could end up that the 
chair has to do most stuff. But if you're happy about doing it (why not - 
totally the obvious and correct person for the job) then that's great. I'm 
still not sure about the idea of this whole voting system and all the 
"+1"-ing; it just seems a bit silly to me sometimes. I think a consensus 
gained on the list through discussion and offering reasons for or against 
a decision is better than everyone firing off quick e-mails containing two 
characters, but I have not (yet) offered a better alternative so I will 
keep my mouth shut for now.

> b) RFC1 (PSC) modification and adoption (merge all the comments into
> the document);

Yes. I think I proposed the most modifications but didn't formalise 
anything into a diff so yes, I do feel a slight onus on myself to do some 
of that and will get round to it.

> c) RFC2  (Legal) adoption

I looked over that and it all seems fine to me. Nothing surprising or 
controversial there. I'm in favour of it.

> d) CVS write access to S. Pallecchi and R. Antolin

I don't see a problem here. New contributors just need to be reminded to 
thoroughly read SUBMITTING and be aware that they will have to (at least 
help to) support their contributions on other platforms than the one they 
use. I think problems arise when someone develops something for personal 
use, with assumptions that it will only be used on their system and then 
the contribution into mainstream, multi-platform GRASS is like an 
after-thought. Just saying that because I notice e.g. with the new r.li, 
it has lots of compile errors on Windows and appears to use FIFOs which 
won't work on Windows.


More information about the grass-psc mailing list