[GRASS-user] GRASS PSC: Formalization comments

[Sampson, David]

Scott,
 
Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear another observer up and
commenting. The company is good to have.
 
I will make some inline comments to the GRASS community at large using
'>'. I certainly don't expect Scott to have all or any answers.

________________________________

From: grassuser-bounces at grass.itc.it
[mailto:grassuser-bounces at grass.itc.it] On Behalf Of Sampson, David
Sent: July 27, 2006 09:52
To: grassuser at grass.itc.it
Subject: [GRASS-user] GRASS Project Steering Committee (PSC)
Nominations[Amendments]






On Behalf of Scott Mitchell 
============================ 
The issue with a PSC is probably not so much the membership, in that
first we need consensus that there should/will be a PSC, and then how it
will come into being.  I do appreciate you bringing this up, Dave, as it
has spurred me (and hopefully some others) to go back and re- read past
posts on the issue. 

> My understanding is that a PSC (or something) is required to get GRASS
officialiy into OSGEO. I don't know if it has to be a PSC per say, but
some type of formality that involves the community and makes sure the
interests of a few are not highjacked from the masses. OSGEO is looking
for some BASIC formalization. If we can find the most BASIC formal
process that can make the contributors happy that would be great. I will
comment on the past posts a little later. My goal is to do what I can to
encourage GRASS at large to get the BASIC formality required to make
OSGEO happy for now.

> One vote to consider is the all encompasing joining of OSGEO. I have
had a flood of e-mails in support of becoming part of OSGEO officialy.
However on the lists I sense resistance. And I think this is process,
not concept. The current process is... well... non existent since this
is a brainstorning phase and things have only been proposed and
rejected. nothing agreed on. So if we want to be part of OSGEO what are
we willing to do to follow their baic requirements.

  From having done so, I agree that there is general consensus from
those that have posted on the issue, but that there are also concerns
with specifics of the formation and/or decision making procedure.  I
don't have any issue with the process as it has been discussed, and
agree that we need suggestions for alternatives from those that do have
issues. 

> I will dig up some of the comments of the past to get people chewing
on them and maybe bring some of the people who made the original
comments to participate in a process they can live with. 

For those that don't know me (I'm relatively quiet on the list):   
this is all from the perspective of someone who is a long time GRASS
user (from version 4.1), that has had to admit to himself in the past
couple of years that he is not going to find the time to contribute
significantly to code development, despite having had a lot of fun
playing with programming as a grad student.  I have a large stake in the
future of GRASS in terms of academic research and teaching, so am  

working to increase contribution in the training and outreach areas.   
I can read the code, but am too rusty to be writing it ! :)  

> I hear yhea...

 But back on topic - the most active programmers are making a great
effort to get the new release out, and this is definitely appreciated by
the greater community.  This decision-making issue has longer term
implications, and while it shouldn't be taken lightly nor rashly, I
think it's in everyone's interest to get it settled.  So I hope we can
keep the issue moving forward. 

> I realy like what GRASS 6.1 offers. Great strides on the GUI. I agree
that their efforts are appreciated. I am starting to get the feeling
that some aspects of the PSC are making the developers feel alienated
from the process. And then others I get the feeling they like the status
quo, or want an alternative. I think we are all open to an alternative
the works for users, programers, beta testers, documentors, teachers etc
etc. Nothing is hashed in stone.  

So my purpose here is to declare my support for the formation of a
steering committee, and full participation in OSGEO.  I too had concerns
about the copyright transfer issues early on, but this seems to have
been taken care of.  I think we should be able to agree on a structure
that will maintain the spirit of open, informal   

> +1 ofn supporting the PSC. So we'll just keep pluging away until we
have some players up to plate. +1 on OSGEO. I assume the community at
large is in support or we would not be where we are. but atleast I know
there are 6 people in agreance with something (smile). Copyright, an
important issue, although not my area of expertise.

> When forming a local OSGEO chapter my major concern was with GRASS
having a voice becasue there were no GRASS users represented by OSGEO
membership, where the mapserver side was well represented. My concern is
being addressed by the development of a membership process wihtin OSGEO.
This makes me happy that some day soon I hope, GRASS is represented in
OSGEO and the local Ottawa Chapter with project and personal memberhsip
in OSGEO.

collaboration and wide-open potential input, but still have a   
management structure that is formal enough to be considered viable by
OSGEO.  I won't go into details since there's extensive discussion in
the archives already, and I think that the main issue is probably to
rationalize different viewpoints already expressed. 

> I think some of the major BARRIER topics would be worth while bringing
out and clearing up. I feel as those some of those topics were left as
hanging issues that were never resolved. I'll try to dig up a few ones I
think killed the last process (by educated guessing). But if anyone
knows of unresolved issues... this si the time to table them.

> Thanks for the links bellow. This is where I will grab some of the
dead horses to flog in the field again. 

For those that haven't read past discussions already, or want a
refresher, see (at least): 

http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022429.html
<http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022429.html>  
and 
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022501.html
<http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022501.html>  

Despite my declaration that it's probably not the "real" issue, I'm
quite happy to support all of these nominations for a steering
committee...

> 
Michael Barton +1 
Hamish Bowman  +1 
Brad Douglas   +1 
Paul Kelly     +1 
Markus Neteler +1 
Cedric Shock   +1 
Venkatesh Raghavan +1 
Roger Bivand +1 
Paolo Zatelli +1 

The number of committee members is another open issue - MAYBE the
potential committee is getting big, but I would add a nomination for
Helena Mitasova.  If this has already happened and you've declined,
sorry, I missed that in reviewing the archives.  Helena has been
involved in the GRASS community for as long as I can remember, is a
passionate advocate, and contributes greatly to the consensus-seeking
discussions on the development list in our informal current approach.
She has research and development partnerships in various labs around the
world that have used GRASS in their research and contributed
improvements to GRASS capabilities and performance back into the code
base for all to share.  A perfect example of the open source model ! :) 

> Size is important. Agreed... but so far we are at ZERO (0) as no one
has aceepted nomination.... so I think we have a while until we need to
worry about size... I figure once we have one or two people step
forward, the PSC is formed and they can start working on tasks at hand.
Then momentum will begot momentum 

I know you're trying to reduce the cross posting, but since I'm not
currently subscribed to the user's list, this probably won't get through
there - so I'm addressing the dev list too. 

> Well the crystal ball has spoken and I think the majority of people
would like the cross posting to stop. I was told that its a fact that
ALL nominees are on the user list. I've had two people on the list tell
me they are not on the users list. But I was given fact so moved on it.
I also got the feeling that a vote on that subject was excessive so I
moved on it myself. Firefights either way. I just duck and hope for the
best.

> I sugested perhaps a seprate mailing list altogether, but that was
also rejected. So I think to apease the masses we will stick to the
users list and only the users list and risk loosing some people  We'l
convinve them to come over to the dark side though.

Cheers, 
Scott  

 

> Cheers for sure... when are we having our next beer anyhow there Scott

 

Dave 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20060727/5a52c795/attachment.html