Revised RFC 1 - Need Comments

[Howard Butler]

At 02:22 PM 10/11/2006, Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) wrote:
>I don't know about the maximum of 2 years though, I have no problem 
>with anybody sitting longer on the PSC as long as they are still 
>active in the project and play their role well. It might be good to 
>involve new people once in a while though.

I must not have been clear.  It was a recurring 2 year term, not a 
maximum.  You could be elected for as many terms as you can stand :)

At 02:41 PM 10/11/2006, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
I think this adds unnecessary voting overhead for little value.  Amoung other
>things, it means we need to more carefully define who is considered a
>community member and gets to vote - if we are doing binding votes on a
>long term basis.  The rationale (in my mind) for a poll on RFC-20's
>formation of the PSC is to just verify that this move has community support.

I agree that the slippery slope of "so if you start voting, who's 
eligible to vote?" is a problem.  Just an idea, maybe poorly 
conceived.  A related question is the PSC expected to act on behalf 
of a constituency?

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

I agree.


We could sidestep the RFC numbering insanity by just calling this RFC 42 :)

Howard