[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Paul Kelly]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Hamish wrote:

> - 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

Yes I think I didn't read Scott's proposal well enough. I wasn't aware 
that we were deleting the explicit mention of the IRST institute.

> a physical location means.
>
> - 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)

That's not a bad idea. There could be a rule that when a proposal is put 
forward it is always Cced to grass-dev. But then there is danger of the 
discussion ending up there instead of on grass-psc and it getting 
confusing. But maybe that isn't a bad thing - if it's relevant to 
grass-dev - and grass-psc can be used for stuff that isn't so relevant?

> - 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.

Yes isn't that what RFC2 says - that someone's name should only be added 
to the copyright notice when *subtantial* contributions are made to a 
file.

> 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!

Yes it is all a mess now. I was aware there might be a little change (to 
the definition of the project and kind of sneakily wrote that into what I 
was voting on. But now more things have changed so my motion/proposal is 
obviously invalid now. But we don't necessarily have to call a new vote - 
as RFC1 says having consensus on the list is enough to pass a motion.

> - 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

Not a bad idea. I'm not currently "affiliated" but no harm in putting my 
last known institution in I suppose! (Queen's University Belfast, Northern 
Ireland). I'm not an expert on mediawiki formatting so will leave that to 
someone else.

Paul