[GRASS-user] GRASS PSC Update

[Sampson, David]

Paul and others,

Thanks for the comments and updates. It sounds like things are moving
along with the GRASS PSC. This is exciting.

Please keep us all informed as the process unfolds.

Cheers 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kelly [mailto:paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk] 
Sent: October 31, 2006 06:47
To: Sampson, David
Cc: grassuser at grass.itc.it
Subject: Re: [GRASS-user] GRASS PSC Update

Hello David

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Sampson, David wrote:

> Hey Folks,
>
> I thought I would follow up from our previous process of forming the 
> GRASS PSC.
>
> Since the time we announced who formed the PSC I thought I'd leave 
> things be and let proccesses be what they may and allow the group a 
> chance to come together.
>
> I am curious to know where the GRASS PSC currently stands and if they 
> require any assiatnce from the GRASS commmunity as a whole.
>
> Maybe a single representative from the GRASS PSC an give us all an 
> update.

Just thought I'd let you know that we've been discussing revisions to
the RFC document that describes the PSC's terms of reference, the
motivation being to hopefully try and disturb as little as possible the
current method of achieving consensus for technical decisions on the
developers mailing list. The OSgeo guidelines require the PSC to
maintain a certain level of quality control over the codebase, and
personally I hope the PSC should be able to achieve this by
re-emphasising and improving the code committing guidelines that already
exist, and having some kind of formal approval over who is granted CVS
write privileges.

The other part of the PSC's work is "project management" - this is a bit
vague at the minute but I anticipate it to involve setting deadlines for
releases, organising bug days, promotional work, that kind of thing. As
I feel Markus has indicated in the past he is sometimes unhappy with the
burden placed on him in this regard (hope he doesn't mind me saying
that!), it looks like this is an area the PSC should be able to to make
some good progress in without trying to "fix something that isn't
broken", as would be the case if we tried to replace the current process
for technical decision-making.

Other PSC members feel free to disagree with me if you think I haven't
given a true representation of the discussions! I won't take offence!

Thanks

Paul