PSC Member Nomination

[Howard Butler]

On May 9, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Steve Lime wrote:
>>>  Any thoughts on size?
>> Steve,
>> I'm flexible on PSC size myself.  Certainly up to a dozen is no  
>> problem.
>
> In our last email exchange we had 7 potential candidates, if we set  
> no limit then that bumps the PSC size to 14 people. I think that's  
> a bit much. Something halfway between 14 and 7 would be better.

Daniel,

Why would 14 be a bit much?  Do you fear it would dilute the power of  
an individual PSC member?  Would a committee that big be unwieldy to  
manage?

In my opinion, the power to be exercised in our governance is not the  
+1 vote, but instead it is the veto.  After watching and  
participating for almost 2 years, it seems to me as though we run  
with "implicit consensus," and our process exists to provide  
documentation for larger items and goings-on, along with a  
significant check when and if it needs to be used (has anyone vetoed  
anything yet?).  Our RFCs are posted and voted upon mainly to check  
to see if there is anyone who is willing to veto (and additionally  
willing to do something about it).  I don't see us changing this  
approach whether we are 7 people or 70.

So, by my (maybe flawed) reasoning, if we were to add 7 or more  
members, we wouldn't be diluting the PSC. This means 7 more chances  
for vetoes, 7 more chances for people to speak up about an item they  
care about and be required to do something about if they were to  
veto.  I don't think it would gum up our works to effectively double  
our size.  The point of our RFC and governance is to do as little  
bureaucratic work as possible while still keeping our hand on the  
tiller ;)  Having 7 more to share the load wouldn't hurt in this  
regard, and if it really is something someone cares about, they have  
the veto they can always exercise.

Being on the PSC is cheap egoboo along with assumed responsibility  
when you veto.  It provides an avenue of peer recognition that can go  
beyond mere committer access, because not everyone can or wants to  
participate in the project in that way, yet they may still contribute  
significantly.  Instead of a club, I see it as a status, in current  
activity level and as a measurement of contribution.

Howard