[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Hamish]

Hamish:
> > > - Specifiying our HQ is ITC(or modern equivalent) is a good thing.
Paul:
> > 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.
Markus:
> Now we are mentioning Intevation without link to the CVS and
> the Web site link without institute - looks a bit unbalanced.

propsed changes to RFC1:  (see attached patch)

# revert the ITC->CVS+website change & update irst's name. I think
that's as clear as we need to be about who we are. (the cvs may be
the heart, but it isn't the whole)
g.version -c has listed ITC as the home since Dec 1 2003, and I guess
Baylor really wasn't active for a while before that change was made.

# grounds for removal from CVS write access: as currently worded the
only reason is for removal is violating the SUBMITTING guidelines. 
Make it similar to methof of removal from the PSC given at the end of
RFC1. (I probably got \link wrong in the attached patch, please fix!)


other than those changes, I am happy with RFC1 and ready to vote in
favour of it.




I think RFC3 still needs some work however. The rest of this email
refers to that.


Hamish:
> > > - 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)
Paul:
> > 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?
Markus:
> I am not a big friend of endless crossposting (and usually it is
> incomplete). So, if, then dicussions should *move* to grass-dev and
> *go back* once the technical issues are clarified.

My idea is to make grass-dev the a de facto psc-announce mailing list.
Two things I would like to avoid: 1) concerned devs learning of
decisions on matters they care about after the decision is made.
2) good ideas only suggested by -dev readers when they learn of it,
after the RFC is frozen and a vote is announced.

It's ok to say technical discussions happen on -dev, but opinions on
e.g. licensing are not banned there and should be taken into account.
The question is how to filter only useful info there; probably the
best time is some time after the initial proposal, once we have a first
draft of the new RFC in CVS but before final RFC version and call for
votes.
??


Hamish:
> > > 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!

Process might work like this:

1 Formal proposal (cc -dev list)
   [discussion on PSC mailing list]
2 Draft RFC added to CVS
   [announce on -dev list, finalize on PSC list]
3 Call for votes (RFC is locked in CVS)
   [4 working days]
4 Close of voting
   [if needed more discussion on the PSC list; else announce result]


?

Regardless, the "4 day discussion/voting period" text in RFC3 is broken
and needs to be changed. Discussion should happen before the voting
period.


> > 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.

Ultimately it is us in control, not the RFC process, and we can do
whatever we like, but it is nice to have some formal record. I think it
is good to at mention in the RFC3 intro that a unanimous and unambiguous
vote is the prefered way of doing business.


Hamish:
> > > - 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
Paul:
> > 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).

It's entirely up to you, or skip it if you want.

> > I'm not an expert on mediawiki formatting

Use a ":" on the line following the bullet point to continue on the
next line while preserving indentation level, like so:
* Your name <email>
: where you are/what you do



Hamish
-------------- next part --------------
Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 RFC1_PSC.dox
--- RFC1_PSC.dox	22 Mar 2007 09:13:32 -0000	1.8
+++ RFC1_PSC.dox	23 Mar 2007 07:40:04 -0000
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
 determines membership, and makes decisions on GRASS project issues.
 
 "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.
+Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the surrounding 
+development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently headquarted 
+at FBK-irst (formerly ITC), Trento, Italy.
 
 \section tor Terms of Reference
 
@@ -65,6 +65,9 @@
 As a last resort, if lack of consensus continues, the developer  
 community can request the PSC to choose options best preserving the  
 quality of the GRASS project.
+
+Removal of write access to the source code repository is handled as a
+proposal to the committee as \link operation described below.
 
 \subsubsection legal Compliance with Legal Measures