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

Chris Hodgson 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.
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel

More information about the postgis-devel mailing list