[GRASS-PSC] Open issues
neteler.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed Dec 6 09:50:22 EST 2006
On 12/6/06, Paul Kelly <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
> 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! ;)
"Happy" is definitely the wrong word. I am taking it as another burden :-)
Earlier I had hoped tjhat someone else would do it which doesn't
seem to be the case.
> 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 won't do the most work, since I already have too much to do in
the GRASS project. We'll see how it works out. And certainly it's
not a lifetime job.
I would accept the vote if we agree
- to keep PSC overhead as low as possible
- distribute the work among us
> 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.
Maybe we can do as much as possible through discussion, but sometimes
we need to hear all individual voices for the formal things.
> > 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.
I'll leave this one to others for now.
> > 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.
I think that it will be adapted in future if needed.
> > 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.
Concerning r.li: I assume that they do not know these problems yet.
But my point here is that I am doing their work of checking and submitting.
Due to my workload, I no longer want to be the bottleneck here.
Since S. Pallecchi and R. Antolin are able to work with CVS, we should
enable them to do so. I am really submitting too much for other people,
maybe we can invent a solution here (also merging translation files etc).
More information about the grass-psc