[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Scott Mitchell]

On 22 Mar 2007, at 07:47, Hamish wrote:
>>
>> 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!

Good points.  This is a good example of an issue where although we  
don't want to get bogged down in bureaucracy, if we don't have some  
reasoned policy in place it leads at least to greater confusion, and  
in a worse case scenario risks unintended conflict if someone ever  
felt their input/vote was discarded/discounted.

I had a "funny feeling" AFTER making that one revision to the CVS  
copy (1.6), but I also was (perhaps mistakenly) getting the  
impression that people didn't think it was ready for voting on yet,  
or at least that we were getting a request for wording about the  
origin of the PSC at the same time we were initiating voting.  My  
main error was that in my hurry to contribute before running off to a  
meeting, the fact that the vote had formally been called didn't  
register.  Discussing the change by email first and then committing  
the change to CVS hours later added to the mess.  Sorry for  
contributing to confusion.

> ps - I think RFC1.1, 1.2, 1.3 is fine to do for minor edits. I suggest
> current voting be for RFC1(.0) [if I figured my time zones right*  
> that's
> rev 1.5 in CVS] and not for any changes since Paul called the vote. We
> can fix it in the next round.

> Actually, any post-call edits to the RFC in CVS (including minor) is
> probably a "-1" veto offense from me (call for a restart),  ...
> (obviously adding URLs etc is harmless, but it is
> a very bad precedent and suggests an unfinished document)
>
I THINK you're saying that adding the sentence about the fact that we  
were nominated and elected could count as a minor revision.  It is  
certainly an edit that people have requested and supported.  But to  
confuse the matter, in the same cvs commit I redefined the GRASS  
project, and so now it's not clear to me whether it should say what  
it does now (versions 1.6 on):

""The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software  
known as the
Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, which at the time of  
this writing
has code hosted in a CVS repository at Intevation GmbH, and a web and  
mailing
list presence at http://grass.itc.it."

or what it said in version 1.5:

""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."

Personally, I'm not too concerned either way, I think we achieved  
consensus that we just need to establish which stuff we're talking  
about at the time of the RFC writing, and that we're working towards  
it becoming "OSGeo GRASS" - both of the above alternatives seem to do  
that job, but one has the "headquartered" wording.

And certainly revisions 1.7 to 1.8 are minor, Markus just added  
hyperlinks.  But yes, edits to the text during voting are confusing  
at the very least, and possibly vote-nullifying.

Having said all that... I'm confused as to where we stand now.  Are  
you suggesting that there's a vote still in progress for version 1.5,  
and that we can THEN vote for edits to a new version after that?  I  
can live with that, I was perhaps under the mistaken impression that  
we should get it right once and then not edit it any more... but as  
soon as I say that I can't figure out why it would be so rigid.  So  
now I'm just confused as to (1) what exactly I would vote for, (2) I  
am concerned that there is confusion regarding what other people have  
voted for, which of course is what you're pointing out as something  
to avoid.

By my quick scan of the list traffic, Paul initiated voting at 1822  
GMT 21 Mar, followed by immediate discussion that caused the edits,  
then at 0347 GMT 22 Mar Helena added +1 "for the adaptation of of  
RFC1 and RFC3 as they are proposed now in CVS", and there were three  
more +1s from Michael, Brad, and Dylan, all in response to Helena's  
mail.

I suggest that in this situation we proceed with the "as proposed now  
in CVS" basis (perhaps that should be Paul's call? Markus'?), which  
would put us at version 1.8, and that in future we take more care to  
avoid this confusion, perhaps with something specifically written in  
to the voting policy, either in RFC3 or a followup document.  I  
realize this is NOT what you specifically suggested in your mail,  
Hamish, and I respect your logic and could certainly be happy with  
your interpretation.  At the same time, it seems (??) to go against  
what others have voted for.

Speaking of which, I THINK we have some votes for RFC3 but no call  
for a vote - did I miss it?

Moving on to things that are specifically RFC3 or wider discussion:

One suggestion for at least the future, even if it's too late to  
implement now for RFC1:  if someone calls a vote and that immediately  
initiates something that can be considered a minor edit, then if  
nobody else has voted yet, the caller of the vote could have the  
option of accepting the edits and declaring the new version to be the  
one under consideration.  This seems compatible with the fact that  
the caller is responsible for managing / collating the votes under  
RFC3.  I'm not sure how feasible this is - i.e. how well it scales  
with size of the PSC, dealing with time zones, and delayed emails...  
but is perhaps worth considering/modifying if we want compromise  
between flexibility and formality.

Second, re: CVS or wiki, I have been assuming that all of this  
discussion is about the CVS version, with the wiki stuff lagging  
behind.  This would be my preference, at least for formal documents  
like the RFCs, but I could certainly live with a wiki model if that  
is broadly desired.

Sorry this got so long...

Scott