[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

Paul Kelly paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk
Wed Mar 21 14:52:42 EDT 2007


Hello Helena
Yes, I got your earlier e-mail - sorry I didn't realise it hadn't gone to 
the list.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo project" 
> which makes
> it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will ensure that it 
> does not
> get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there will be only 
> one
> GRASS recognized by OSGeo.

I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in the 
future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying it - and 
good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind of chicken and 
egg situation - we have to have this document correct and the PSC properly 
in place for GRASS to be accepted as an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't 
seem right to include that in there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was 
saying earlier we could update the PSC later to change things like this 
then that could be done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's 
viewpoint that the GRASS project paragraph should just describe 
unambiguously at this moment in time which project is being governed by 
the PSC and brought into OSGeo.

Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.

> but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I get all the 
> emails but cannot post to the list.
>
> Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly that the 
> members
> of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as if they 
> were appointed or selfdeclared.

Yes I agree now it's good to make this clear - and Scott's proposed 
amendment does this nicely I think.

Paul

> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my subscription 
> meanwhile.
>
> Helena
>
> Helena Mitasova
> Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
> 1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
> Raleigh NC 27695
> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>> Thanks for your response to this.
>> 
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>> 
>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>> 
>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
>>> removed.
>> 
>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just remove 
>> "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the description loses a 
>> lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important. Probably I'm just being 
>> paranoid about it.
>> 
>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything clearer and 
>> simpler than defining the GRASS project as the community based around the 
>> CVS server, mailing lists and website: take those away and we'd be nothing. 
>> I guess the issue is whether describing them as hosted by Intevation and 
>> IRST is the best way of being specific, or if there's another way. As an 
>> alternative to "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>> retrieving revision 1.5
>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>> 
>>  "The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software known as 
>> the
>>  Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the 
>> surrounding
>> -development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently 
>> headquarted
>> -at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.
>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently hosted 
>> (as
>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>> 
>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>> -------------------------------------------
>> 
>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody said 
>> earlier about having to change the RFC document if the location of the CVS 
>> server or website/mailing list hosting changed - I don't see a problem with 
>> that. The GRASS community is de facto defined by our mailing lists, CVS 
>> server and website and if these are changed then that is a significant 
>> change and it's not unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that 
>> situation.
>> 
>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about this issue 
>> and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really addressed it so perhaps 
>> I'm being way OTT about it - and if we don't come to agreement soon on an 
>> alternative wording and nobody else objects then I *am* willing to 
>> eventually just delete that headquarted bit and simplify the whole 
>> description.
>> 
>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into being. In 
>>> our
>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or unlimited 
>>> term?
>> 
>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines 
>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting on the 
>> mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that was in effect 
>> just a guidance measure - this document is what really determines that, as 
>> I understand it. And there deliberately is no minimum/maximum number of PSC 
>> members nor term of service - changes to composition are just handled from 
>> now on by voting on the PSC list.
>> 
>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's related to 
>> the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS, mailing lists and 
>> website. So as long as the current maintainers of those (Bernhard and 
>> Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in accordance with the wishes of 
>> the PSC, that's enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it a formal 
>> proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the list over the 
>> wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that we adopt the rest of 
>> RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be official guidance documents for 
>> the operation of the PSC. And with the four working days - we have until 
>> 7:30pm Central European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on 
>> this.
>> 
>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting guidelines (+1 
>> means willing to support the implementation) I will do my best to maintain 
>> the documents in CVS and try and make what I meant by the various forms of 
>> words clearer if there is any dispute.
>> 
>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel obliged 
>> to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to "support the 
>> implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you do think these are 
>> really great documents and will make GRASS much better and are enthusiastic 
>> to work with them etc. etc. then by all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the 
>> voting process becomes a bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their 
>> +1.
>> 
>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come across 
>> like that :)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> grass-psc at grass.itc.it
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
>




More information about the grass-psc mailing list