Revised RFC 1 - Need Comments

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Steve Lime wrote:
> Hi folks: I have taken a shot at revising RFC 1, the formation of the
> techincal steering committee, to form instead a project steering
> committee. I've borrowed a bit from Cameron Shorter's work from
> MapBuilder which in turn was built from Frank's original document.
> 
> That said, it still needs work, comments and so on. The document is at:
> 
>   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-1a
> 
> Feel free to edit, pass along comments, concerns or whatever...
> 
> Steve

1. I would agree with Daniel comments on defining areas of 
responsibility. A good structure for documents is:
	a. What is it?
		the TSC is the team the provides the technical direction
		for the mapserver project. It is made up of ...
		It is responsible for ...
	b. Why would I care?
		As a mapserver user or outsider, this doc gives an
		overview of the how decisions and directions in the
		mapserver project are made and how to influence them
	c. How does it work?
		Detail process ...

2. I have no problem with member terms. I think it is good to re-affirm 
people and to occasionally change people to get new ideas and to shake 
things up a little :) when needed.

3. I agree with Howard's proposal for ratification, via non-anonymous poll.

4. Subcommittees seem like a lot of overhead. I'm ok with them, if there 
are particularly very large tasks or very off mainstream tasks they are 
chartered to perform but there should be a clear advantage to creating 
them over using the existing infrastructure. Probably the TSC/PSC should 
define the tasks/deliverables and timeframe up front via an rfc and the 
it gets voted on in the normal manner.

5. RFC numbering doesn't matter as long as people can find stuff easily.

-Steve W