Choosing the Choosers

[Paul Ramsey]

Ed,

   You are right, my answer to Chip is probably confusing because I  
did not read the RFC while writing it, so may have contradicted in in  
places.

   The key misunderstanding is below though.  I am not talking about  
the Foundation. I am talking about Mapserver, the project.  Someone  
has to represent Mapserver, the project, in discussions with other  
Foundation partners, and in making final decisions on how/if/when  
Mapserver, the project, joins the Foundation.

   I am proposing that Mapserver already has a decision making body,  
the MTSC, and that they take responsibility for making the decisions  
on how/if/when/what regarding the Mapserver project and its  
relationship to the Foundation.  You are right in pointing out that  
the current MTSC RFC delegates "non-technical" issues to "someone  
else", but I am proposing that, in the absence of actually having  
someone else, the MTSC is as good a body as any to steer us through  
the next several months, provided they make their decisions in an  
open way, so as to avoid the Shock and Awe situation faced by the  
open letter.

   You are right, the MTSC cannot make decisions by "polling people  
on an email list", but they *can* make better decisions by polling  
people, then voting in the normal way as given in the RFC.  Had the  
open letter writers had the freedom to "poll people on an email list"  
they would not have
made their initial mistake in naming decisions.  MTSC will have that  
freedom, and given that, I could not ask for a better group of people  
to actually make the decisions.

Paul

On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Ed McNierney wrote:

> It may be helpful to consider a refined draft of the Foundation's
> proposed responsibilities and goals before trying to answer the  
> question
> of how it should be managed.