Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch
Fri Oct 27 04:38:20 EDT 2006

Scott Mitchell wrote:
> 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...
+ 1 - it better focus on the importance of the developers and of their 
>>>> 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.
+ 1 - two weeks is fine for me; you have to consider also, that sometime 
people from PSC could be away (holyday, work, etc..), moreover they have 
to rely to experts or at least get documented on the topic to vote for.
>> 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 
Michael Barton wrote:
> I am just getting a chance to start going through this long list of psc
> emails and responses. I'll start with this first question and see how much
> farther I get tonight.
> Reason: GRASS has a long and strongly established tradition and culture of
> open discussion on important issues that affect the direction of the project
> and the software. Creating a GRASS-PSC list--even one that is open to anyone
> to join and monitor--could give the impression of an attempt to create an
> elite managerial class.
> Proposed solution: The real reason for such a list has considerable value,
> however. I suggest all PSC business be conducted on the developer list, but
> that a consistent identifying phrase be in the header (GRASS PSC comes to
> mind for some odd reason). Then I suggest that a mailing list rule be
> implemented that copies all mail with this header to a separate archive
> where it can easily be searched and referenced. This archive should be
> maintained with the rest of the GRASS email archives and accessible from the
> GRASS main web site.
+ 1 - it doesn't necessary cut out of the discussion developers.
I think that this could be an area to discuss things between PSC members 
after a larger discussion on dev-list.
A) discussion has to be open at the dev-list with a call for 
comment/proposal (4 weeks ?)
B) discussion pass to the GRASS-PSC member for voting for (2 weeks ?)
C) the results are postponed to the dev-list with comment and motivation 
for further comment/proposal (1 week ?)
D) a final discussion and vote is given (1 week ?)

Maybe too long process but at least keep confident on the goodness of 
the decision and better involves/integrate developers on decision processes.



Dr. Eng. Massimiliano Cannata
Responsabile Area Geomatica
Istituto Scienze della Terra
Scuola Universitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana
Via Trevano, c.p. 72
CH-6952 Canobbio-Lugano
Tel: +41 (0)58 666 62 14
Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09 

More information about the grass-psc mailing list