[GRASS-PSC] RFC1 vote reminder

[Scott Mitchell]

On 23-Mar-07, at 04:49 , Hamish wrote:

> 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)
...
> # grounds for removal from CVS write access: as currently worded the
> only reason is for removal is violating the SUBMITTING guidelines.
>
...

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

I agree with Hamish's summary and solution.  I have patched my own  
copy and was ready to commit it to CVS but got commit-shy, given my  
own role in creating confusion in our initial attempts at this.  But  
we seem to have stalled again, so here I am.

If I get a little more positive reinforcement, I'll go ahead and  
commit, and if I read the consensus right, we will not only be ready  
to vote, many will be happy to get it over with, considering they  
already voted!  I think we would have to start again, even with  
everyone's best intentions in the past, for proper process,  
especially since this is to properly establish the PSC.

So - should I go ahead and commit and re-call the vote, or ... ?

Thanks,
Scott