[postgis-devel] Speaking of openness and formality - finish vote on Bborie Park as a committer
chodgson at refractions.net
Thu May 12 17:37:49 PDT 2011
I thought this was already passed - as per RFC 1:
"A proposal will be accepted if it receives +2 (including the author)
and no vetoes (-1). "
Since it's been available for more than the prescribed two business days
and has received two +1's from Regina and Paul, and no -1's, its a done
deal. Strk makes it +3 and I'll throw in another +1 to make it +4 if
that helps add momentum :)
Who has access to make the change in SVN?
Paragon Corporation wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 :)
> 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. :)
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
More information about the postgis-devel