[GRASS-PSC] Re: GRASS PSC

[Helena Mitasova]

Dylan Beaudette wrote:
> On Thursday 26 October 2006 06:44, Scott Mitchell wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
In the section 2 regarding the developers who are not memebers of PSC, I 
suggest to replace

"their input is encouraged and valued"

with

" PSC will seek and rely on their expertise and advice when making 
decisions in the relevant areas."

I for myself don't feel confident to make decisions in areas where I 
don't have sufficient expertise
(and those are many) and I would have to rely on advice from people like 
Glynn.
>> 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?
>>     
We need definitely more time for voting - you actually have to THINK
before casting the vote (I have sometimes voted hastily right away
and then realized that was not what I wanted). The time should depend on
a complexity of the issue - for example you would need to study and 
understand
a proposal for new raster format for a few weeks before voting on it.
You may also seek some advice from others or discuss it with colleagues.
Once you cast your vote and the decision is made you cannot take it back.
So I agree with 1-2 weeks on small issues with extended period
for more complex projects.

Helena
>
> +1 on the 4-5 business days. As many of us are in different time zones, and 
> often in the field- this would be a nice window for voting.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   


-- 
Helena Mitasova
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
North Carolina State University
1125 Jordan Hall
NCSU Box 8208
Raleigh, NC 27695-8208
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

email: hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu
ph: 919-513-1327 (no voicemail)
fax 919 515-7802