[GRASS-PSC] Re: GRASS PSC

[Scott Mitchell]

On 26-Oct-06, at 13:51, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> Dylan Beaudette wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 October 2006 06:44, Scott Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 like that...

>>> 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
>>


Right.  Perhaps have a minimum open period then but a practice that  
this be evaluated on a per-proposal basis to figure out how long we  
need, or try to run it like a committee meeting where discussion  
stays open until the vote is called.  The trick would be to have  
something in place to try to avoid deadlock/stagnation.

I've put my read on the ideas discussed so far back into the document  
and committed the edits - see

http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox? 
rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup