[GRASS-PSC] Re: GRASS PSC

[Scott Mitchell]

On 26 Oct 2006, at 08:37, Maciej Sieczka wrote:
>
> Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>> I have updated at least
>> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/ 
>> GRASS_Project_Steering_Commitee#Status_September_2006
>>
>> The RFC-1 was discussed very controversal, opinions were orthogonal.
>> Let's see if we can fix this. I cc to all PSC members.
>
> I, for one, don't have problems with it.
>
> technical note: there are 3 links to RFC-1 on the GRASS WIKI page;
> only the 3rd one links to actuall document, the 2 other link to
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1.txt; ???

Yes, weird - the others don't show up if I click on the edit tag,  
either - a bug?
>
>> @GRASS-PSC: should I create a dedicated mailing list to get  
>> communication
>> archived?
>
> +1

+1 - I imagine that much discussion will occur in the bigger lists,  
but also that part of the idea of delegation is that we're expected  
to sort some things out ourselves.  Having an archive keeps the  
discussions documented and open.

I've looked back over many of the old discussions, and the RFC-1.  I  
perceived some concern in the mailing list posts about the nature of  
the hierarchy outlined in the RFC, and I know we've wondered about  
the role of "influential" contributors that have chosen not to be in  
the PSC.  I've experimented with wording to try to hopefully  
alleviate some of these concerns.  I am not completely happy with the  
wording thus far, so have not committed the wording back into CVS,  
but copy the relevant section here, along with a diff.

I also wonder about a longer voting period - I recognize the  
advantage of keeping it short, but two days still seems very short to  
me.  Maybe a week, the other suggestion in the archives, IS too  
long?  Maybe a compromise of 4-5 business days?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RFC1_PSC.dox.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2261 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-psc/attachments/20061026/0419f4d2/RFC1_PSC.dox.obj
-------------- next part --------------

\section summary Summary

A GRASS Project Steering Committee (PSC) is proposed to formalize
major decisions on technical issues and project management. It is
desired to keep the administrational overhead as low as possible.

This document describes how the GRASS Project Steering Committee
determines membership, and makes decisions on GRASS project issues.


\section GRASS Users, Developers and Steering Committee

GRASS is developed by people organized in three concentric circles;
all of these groups have crucial roles in determining the direction  
of the
GRASS project:

<ul>
<li> The GRASS Steering Committee members are in the innermost circle,
      meaning they are the smallest in number and have agreed to take
      on a strategic management role. When necessary, they make  
strategic
      decisions and manage the direction of the project, based on  
proposals
      and input from the rest of the community.</li>
<li> The GRASS Developers are the second circle and contribute to
      source code, documentation, testing, and packaging. They have  
write
      access to the GRASS source code repository (CVS/SVN).   
Developers are
      encouraged to closely peer-review code submissions. This group  
votes
      for the members of the GRASS PSC. It is recognized that there  
are or
      will be developers that have specific expertise key to determining
      the future of the GRASS project but are not (necessarily/ 
always?) part of
      the Steering Committee at any given time; their input is  
encouraged
      and valued.</li>
<li> The GRASS Users are the third circle and are the largest group.
      They contribute to the code, documentation and discussion on  
existing
      and new features through the various mailing lists, the Wiki  
and the
      bug/wish tracker.</li>
<li> All members can submit proposals to the entire community and, when
      necessary (see below), to the PSC for decisions.</li>
</ul>

In brief, the PSC votes on proposals on the GRASS Developers mailing
list ("grass-dev").  Proposals are available for review for at least
two business days, and a single veto is sufficient to delay progress
though ultimately a majority of committee members can pass a proposal.