[postgis-devel] Change in PSC

Chris Hodgson chodgson at refractions.net
Wed May 11 16:09:00 PDT 2011

Nicklas Avén wrote:
> I just hope that a bigger PSC not will lead to less official information
> and more internal PSC information outside the lists.
I'd hope that a larger PSC would if anything make for less "internal 
PSC" communications, if only because CC'ing a larger group becomes more 
work ;)

On that note though, it would seem that the procedure used to 
select/nominate the new PSC members was not quite what was documented in 
my draft of RFC-1. I think the process in RFC-1, which is essentially 
the same process in use by mapserver, gdal, geos, etc, is intended to be 
entirely open, with all nominations and discussions on the -dev list. 
Not that I expect the results to have been any different either way... 
I'd just like to make sure the RFC accurately documents the process that 
we would like to use. And I guess I'd kind of like to lean towards 
openess... of course the RFC-1 voting process doesn't have any say as to 
whether people might privately discuss nominations before they are made 
publicly. And with 3 people on the PSC, the vote is just a formality if 
the nominations have already been discussed at all.

Anyways, if anyone thinks the PSC nomination and voting process as 
described in RFC-1 needs tweaking in light of the process used for the 
recent PSC additions, now would be a good time to make those changes. :)


More information about the postgis-devel mailing list