PSC Member Nomination
hobu.inc at GMAIL.COM
Wed May 9 16:18:59 EDT 2007
On May 9, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> Steve Lime wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on size?
>> I'm flexible on PSC size myself. Certainly up to a dozen is no
> 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.
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
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.
More information about the mapserver-dev