[GRASS-PSC] PSC management

[Markus Neteler]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Paul Kelly
<paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
> Markus Neteler wrote:
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Paul Kelly <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure this really needs any changes to RFC 1 either - if desired,
>>> it could simply be an informal rule.
>>
>> I believe that an addition is needed, especially to fix the currently
>> broken reference to "above" in the text.
>
> I don't see any inconsistency there - as I see it "above" refers to the
> previous paragraph entitled "Operation of the PSC", where it describes how a
> proposal is put to the PSC. Looks OK to me.

Ok - perhaps we add (see "Operation of the PSC") after the words "above" to
make it clear? Motion needed for this amendment?


>>> If any PSC members aren't willing to
>>> continue, then their removal from the PSC can be put forward as a
>>> proposal  by the chair.
>>
>>
>> I dunno, this sounds much like "the chair kicks the sleepy members out".
>
> I guess so, but I just feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea that people
> could be somehow automatically removed from the committee without any
> discussion on the list. Note that addition or removal of members doesn't
> appear to require a formal vote, simply to be put forward as proposal for
> discussion until consensus is reached.

Right - we'll need to do that soon - I'll write another related email about it
asap.

> All it should need is an e-mail (from anyone who feels comfortable sending
> it; it needn't be the chair) saying "I propose that the following members be
> removed from the PSC committee with effect from XX June 2012" - and if there
> are no objections (no need to call a vote, unless anyone wants to) then
> consensus has been reached and the members are removed.

ok.

> Hamish wrote:
>> I would simplify as much as possible, add the reasoning, and leave off
>> the the fine-detail procedural stuff:
>>
>> "In order to keep the PSC fresh, members will annually confirm their
>> continued involvement. This should happen by June 1st of each year,
>> afterwhich nominations for their replacement may commence at the
>> discretion of the chair. They are not replaced, and retain voting rights,
>> until such point as their replacement member is formally accepted."
>
>
> I think this sounds very good; I like the idea that nothing happens
> automatically without being proposed to the committee and I also like the
> idea that there has to be a replacement (otherwise a two-week e-mail outage
> could theoretically lead to all PSC members being booted out and there being
> nobody left!).

Yes, sounds good.

Best regards

Markus