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

Paragon Corporation lr at pcorp.us
Thu May 12 18:14:53 PDT 2011


Good point.  Hmm I guess I should read our RFCs more closely.  I just wasn't
sure if Mark wanted to vote or not and he was still thinking about it.
You are right -- two days is up so we can move on.

As far as who has rights to give rights.  I know I have rights, but haven't
had to give commit rights to anyone since Nicklas so can't recall what link
I used to do it.

I think the way it is setup (vaguely) from memory.  It is setup so anyone on
the PostGIS Dev team can give write rights to anyone else with an osgeo
In the docs, we did say Paul is the current SVN administrator, so I guess
formality wise he should do it, unless we want to change that.


So one last formality remains before we can give Bborie commit rights -
which actually all current committers have to retroactively agree to.

Can all folks listed on the bottom of this: 

Including Bborie -- confirm they agree with these guidelines?



-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:38 PM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] Speaking of openness and formality - finish
vote on Bborie Park as a committer

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

postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net

More information about the postgis-devel mailing list