Revised RFC 1 - Need Comments

[Frank Warmerdam]

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> If we want the PSC to be the ultimate decision making authority for 
> anything that relates to MapServer then should we not state that clearly 
> in this document?

Folks,

I'm all for making it clear that the PSC is overall responsible for
MapServer, though it *seemed* clear enough to me from the proposed
text.

> 2- Subcommittees or parallel committees?
> 
> RFC-1a says: "It is anticipated that seperate "committees" will exist to 
> manage conferences, documentation and web sites.  That said, it is 
> expected that the PSC will be the entity largely responsible for 
> creating any such committees."
> 
> Would conference, docs, website and other committees be sub-committees 
> or parallel committees? My first idea is to think that they should be 
> sub-committees who report to the PSC, a bit like OSGeo committees report 
> to the OSGeo board via their chairs. However if others think differently 
> I'm open to discussion, but either way I think the relationship needs to 
> be made clear here.

I think any other committees would be sub-committes, not parallel
committees; however, I'm not even convinced that there will be much
need for additional committees and if we do have them, it isn't
especially necessary to discuss that here.

> 3- RFC numbering:

I'd be fine with RFC-20.

Steve Lime wrote:
 > One thing I'm uncomfortable with is the TSC annointing itself as the
 > PSC. But then again I don't know how that should happen. Perhaps the
 > TSC as it sits with 2 or 4 open memberships (with a community-based
 > nomination, or even voting process) is a good compromise.

My suggestion is that we hold a poll via the web site "ratifying" the
PSC RFC.  The objective being to verify that the community at large
supports the new role.  Similar to what we did for the OSGeo membership.
As a prelude to such a poll, I think the RFC should be circulated for
comment on -users before we (the TSC/PSC members) vote on it, so we can
consider incorporating other suggestions from the community before
adopting it.

A few other comments from my read:

  o Should we consider handling non-developer "project RFCs" on -users
    instead of -dev?  Perhaps at the discretion of the Chair?  This would
    imply that all PSC members should be on -dev and -users. I don't
    actually anticipate very many non-technical RFCs, but when we have
    them I think it might be wrong to hide them on -dev where most of the
    user base will have no opportunity to comment.

  o I personally don't feel like we need a committee size with concepts
    like open seats, though I don't mind.  I do feel like we ought to look
    for one or two additional non-developer members.  This can of course be
    handled as distinct motions (per the document) and does not need to be
    addressed in the RFC.

  o I don't feel like we need to make any sort of formal distinction between
    "community members" and "technical members" of the committee.

  o I believe the RFC should mention that the PSC Chair is the person
    responsible for reporting to the OSGeo board on MapServer project
    activities and status.  Furthermore the document should mention that
    the MapServer PSC is ultimately subject to the OSGeo board.

  o I don't think that OSGeo should be referred to as an external entity.

Generally speaking I think the proposal looks fine.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org