[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

Wed Mar 21 23:47:16 EDT 2007

I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are  
proposed now in CVS.

To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do so,

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 2:29 PM, Scott Mitchell wrote:

> This came in just as I sent out my own message.  I am leaning  
> towards supporting it either as edited by Paul or with other minor  
> tuning, but have to leave now for a long meeting.  I'll check back  
> in later to see if the issue is still open.
>
> One suggestion, though, perhaps I misunderstand the role of the  
> RFC, but it would seem to me that we could define things "as they  
> were" at the voting stage of the RFC and just edit other documents/ 
> pointers etc in the event of new hosting arrangements etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
> On 21-Mar-07, at 14:22 , 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,
>> +Osnabr&uuml;ck, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc