[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

Thu Mar 22 00:39:16 EDT 2007

I vote 1+ for RFC1 and 1+ for RFC3 as posted on the GRASS CVS.

Michael

On 3/21/07 8:47 PM, "Helena Mitasova" <hmitaso at unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> grass-psc at grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton