[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Hamish]

To keep with Brad's request that rambling is to be avoided and takes
away from time better spent doing other things, I'll try and keep my
comments brief. I'll add to that with a request to please cut down
others' comments quoted in emails to the relevant bits. It's hard to
keep up with the volume, >>>>> quoted in full gets out of hand.



- Specifiying our HQ is ITC(or modern equivalent) is a good thing. It
shows clear lineage of group from Baylor, OGC, CERL [+OSGeo in future?].
It's a tangible entity. The "law" is probably not in sync with modern
virtual organizations, so having an address to ship a donation check to
(or subpoena ;) is a good thing. Sort of helps pick a legal venue on our
terms as well, if it ever comes to that. As there has not been a (major)
fork in the code, it is clear that GRASS is referring to us. So I think
it a very good idea to specify *-irst as the HQ. It's hard to argue what
a physical location means.

- trademark infringement: assert ^tm as a defensive measure against
someone else doing so then twisting our arm. No cost. (and don't worry
about ^(R) )

- public submission period: cc grass-dev at the time a vote is called?
(keep folks in the loop; informing after the fact is disimpowering for
the greater community; they may bring up something we haven't thought
of)

- thanks Markus for working on the hundreds of copyright headers (made
easier by your [and other's] previous cleaning efforts over the years, I
am sure) FWIW, I understand the practical need for a script to do it,
but if doing it manually I wouldn't have added myself for little bug fix
or _(i18n) CVS commits, only if I added some original work into the
module.


- thanks to Paul, Arnulf, and everyone else for ideas & keeping this
moving.

- concurrent CVS + Wiki editing of RFCs is bad. Do all PSC members have
CVS write access? If not, is that a problem? I much prefer to work with
Doxygen in CVS[1], as I find the history & compare tools easier to use
and the changes more exact and punctuated. But yes, Wiki[2] is easier to
read, and easier to edit - Markus: how often is the grass63progman[3]
HTML updated? At minimum we need to denote which is the primary source,
and which is being kept up to date. Sustained two way sync is unworkable
IMO. Using the wiki for things like the Agenda is fine[4]. But RFCs
should be more formal IMO.

1.  http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass6/rfc/
2.  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
3.  http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/
4.  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda

- close votes after 4-7 days. I fear 4 may be too short if busy with
field work or family. 10 days max. Closed earlier if all voters have
reported in, or >50% of voters if a non-unanimous vote was called.
Moving voting to RFC3 is a good move. Let's squish the low hanging fruit
with RFC1 and get it out of the way and then focus solely on the more
nitty gritty problem.
Paul wrote:
> And with the four working days -  we have until 7:30pm Central
> European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.

It seems funny to discuss, revise, [,repeat] while voting is open. The
call for votes should signal the end of discussion. (me: sorry for being
AWOL!) Changing the RFC after a vote is called must be banned, wait for
the next RFC to fix it. Otherwise an early +1 vote is for something they
haven't seen!

- Added Canonical's Rosetta translation project back onto the Agenda.
  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda

- Add our institutions and/or countries to the PSC wiki page?
(personal interest + adds some level of respectability)
  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC


- Scott wrote: "Initial PSC membership was decided based on a nomination
and informal voting period on the community's mailing lists. [...] are
declared to be the founding Project Steering Committee."

Perfect.


(we are voting for the CVS versions, yes?)


Hamish