[postgis-devel] Speaking of openness and formality - finish vote on Bborie Park as a committer

[Paragon Corporation]

Speaking of Openness and voting formality, can we please finish voting on
whether or not to give Bborie Park committer rights as dictated in our
unratified RFC Commit Access Election process.

http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/DevWikiComitGuidelines

Chris since you caught us mid-vote, can you please vote on this?

Strk -  I'm assuming that being a PSC member has not changed your
personality too much that you are going to change your vote from +1.  So I
assume your pre-PSC vote 
stands :).

Mark -- I must remind you that you still have not voted.  If you have issues
please state them now so we can discuss them and move on.

I must also remind everyone that 0, -0 , +0  are perfectly legitimate votes
and votes that should be exercised if you feel you don't know enough about
the matter and don't want your vote to override someone who does and don't
want to hold up the process ruminating it.

http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/RFC/RFC-1

This has gone on long enough and I really would like to see some of Bborie's
hard work make it into PostGIS 2.0.

The impatient nag has spoken :)

Thanks,
Regina


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
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. :)

Chris