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

[Bborie Park]

Hey Regina and everyone else,

I agree with the guidelines.  Heck, I'm glad to have read them as I
was wondering what the policies for commit logs were.

-bborie

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> 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
> account.
> 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.
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/DevWikiComitGuidelines
>
> 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:
> http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/wiki/DevWikiComitGuidelines
>
> Including Bborie -- confirm they agree with these guidelines?
>
> Thanks,
> Regina
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Chris
> Hodgson
> 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?
>
> Chris
>
>
> 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
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>



-- 
Bborie Park
Programmer
Center for Vectorborne Diseases
UC Davis
530-752-8380
bkpark at ucdavis.edu