Open issues regarding OSGeo Incubation

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

Hello,
please be kind on me, I am only trying to help. In case you don't know me,
I am OSGeo assigned GRASS incubation mentor and should coach you through
the process. If you want to learn more about me you can also get me off
list or on IRC #osgeo as seven.

My job is to:
    * advise the project on the incubation process
    * identify all documents the project must complete, and assisting
where practical
    * reviewing submitted documents
    * establishing the necessary infrastructure for the project under
incubation (wiki, web site, svn/cvs, mailing list) as required

If you wonder where I have been all the time, I was following what you did
and I liked it. So there was no reason to do anything (except to listen to
Markus' woes every now and then). And then - yes - I dreaded being eaten
alive by the GRASS anarcho mob [1]. Good that you have this list.

There are only a few steps to go through OSGeo incubation and it seems
like the one main process is stalled. I want to be as much assistance as I
can in getting this done but I will not touch anything, this is your baby.
I will just assist and be a pain in the ass if required. In the end you
ave to do it.

These are the open issues:

1)
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
* "See RFC1 for a proposal.
* "Acceptance pending"

Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or pick up
the discussion so that we can get through with this?

2)
Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "

Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves the
incubation."

I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.

3)
There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General Public
License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need any
help from you.

When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for graduation.

If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
thereof, feel free to contact me.

I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.

Best regards,
Arnulf.

--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com

[1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Arnulf
(Thanks for giving this a kick...)

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Arnulf Christl wrote:

[...]
> These are the open issues:
>
> 1)
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
> * "See RFC1 for a proposal.
> * "Acceptance pending"
>
> Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or pick up
> the discussion so that we can get through with this?

I strongly feel that RFC1 as it currently exists in the CVS is not
workable as a guidance document for the GRASS PSC, for reasons related to
the composition of the GRASS PSC and the current decision-making process
for GRASS development as I have previously posted to this list.
Hence I have already proposed a re-write of RFC1:
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000168.html

Scott Mitchell proposed some changes that I am happy to go along with:
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000170.html

Apart from that no other PSC members have provided feedback. I could
interpret that as a positive sign, but that would be incredibly
presumptuous on my part - thus I still await feedback. FWIW I would
definitely *not* support adoption of RFC1 in its current form.

Paul

>
> 2)
> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "
>
> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves the
> incubation."
>
> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>
> 3)
> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General Public
> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need any
> help from you.
>
> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for graduation.
>
> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>
> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>
> Best regards,
> Arnulf.
>
> --
> Arnulf Christl
> http://www.wheregroup.com
>
> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>

[Helena Mitasova]

On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Arnulf
> (Thanks for giving this a kick...)
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>
> [...]
>> These are the open issues:
>>
>> 1)
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/ 
>> GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
>> * "See RFC1 for a proposal.
>> * "Acceptance pending"
>>
>> Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or  
>> pick up
>> the discussion so that we can get through with this?
>
> I strongly feel that RFC1 as it currently exists in the CVS is not  
> workable as a guidance document for the GRASS PSC, for reasons  
> related to the composition of the GRASS PSC and the current  
> decision-making process for GRASS development as I have previously  
> posted to this list.
> Hence I have already proposed a re-write of RFC1:
> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000168.html
>
> Scott Mitchell proposed some changes that I am happy to go along with:
> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000170.html
>
> Apart from that no other PSC members have provided feedback. I  
> could interpret that as a positive sign, but that would be  
> incredibly presumptuous on my part - thus I still await feedback.  
> FWIW I would definitely *not* support adoption of RFC1 in its  
> current form.

I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there are  
any objections
I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification and  
anything
else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for
a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote - I  
suggest March 21.
Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need for  
a lot of discussion,
but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.

Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye on  
us so that we don't
forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,

Helena

>
> Paul
>
>
>>
>> 2)
>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect  
>> membership in
>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the  
>> foundation? "
>>
>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community  
>> approves the
>> incubation."
>>
>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you  
>> don't
>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>
>> 3)
>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to  
>> "General Public
>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not  
>> need any
>> help from you.
>>
>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for  
>> graduation.
>>
>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any  
>> combination
>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>
>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>> --
>> Arnulf Christl
>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>
>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

On Fri, March 9, 2007 07:13, Helena Mitasova wrote:

>
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hello Arnulf
>> (Thanks for giving this a kick...)
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> These are the open issues:
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/
>>> GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
>>> * "See RFC1 for a proposal.
>>> * "Acceptance pending"
>>>
>>> Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or
>>> pick up
>>> the discussion so that we can get through with this?
>>
>> I strongly feel that RFC1 as it currently exists in the CVS is not
>> workable as a guidance document for the GRASS PSC, for reasons
>> related to the composition of the GRASS PSC and the current
>> decision-making process for GRASS development as I have previously
>> posted to this list.
>> Hence I have already proposed a re-write of RFC1:
>> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000168.html
>>
>> Scott Mitchell proposed some changes that I am happy to go along with:
>> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000170.html
>>
>> Apart from that no other PSC members have provided feedback. I
>> could interpret that as a positive sign, but that would be
>> incredibly presumptuous on my part - thus I still await feedback.
>> FWIW I would definitely *not* support adoption of RFC1 in its
>> current form.
>
> I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there are
> any objections
> I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification and
> anything
> else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for
> a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote - I
> suggest March 21.
> Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need for
> a lot of discussion,
> but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.
>
> Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye on
> us so that we don't
> forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,
>
> Helena

All,
thank you for the quick response. I have tried to capture the current
processes in the Wiki and moved some content around.

The current PSC member list is on a separate page to be more prominent (it
is a place that people need to find easily).
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC

I have also added an RFC1 Development Page as work place:
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
>From what I gather this might not even be necessary anymore but it is a
more handsome way to edit and also read things. I will reformat things a
bit but did not change any content except merging the two referenced
mails. When I am done I will let this list know. Then one with powers
might wish to copy it to CVS. I hope this procedure is accetable.

Last I added March 21 as suggested by Helena as date to vote on the
pending RFC1 motion to your agenda:
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda#Motions

These are obviously all meant to be suggestions and if you don't like it
go hack it.

Best regards,
Arnulf.

>> Paul
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect
>>> membership in
>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the
>>> foundation? "
>>>
>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community
>>> approves the
>>> incubation."
>>>
>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you
>>> don't
>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>
>>> 3)
>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to
>>> "General Public
>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not
>>> need any
>>> help from you.
>>>
>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>>> graduation.
>>>
>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any
>>> combination
>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>
>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Arnulf.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arnulf Christl
>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>
>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
>

--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

On Fri, March 9, 2007 05:29, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Arnulf
> (Thanks for giving this a kick...)
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>
> [...]
>> These are the open issues:
>>
>> 1)
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
>> * "See RFC1 for a proposal.
>> * "Acceptance pending"
>>
>> Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or pick
>> up
>> the discussion so that we can get through with this?
>
> I strongly feel that RFC1 as it currently exists in the CVS is not
> workable as a guidance document for the GRASS PSC, for reasons related to
> the composition of the GRASS PSC and the current decision-making process
> for GRASS development as I have previously posted to this list.
> Hence I have already proposed a re-write of RFC1:
> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000168.html
>
> Scott Mitchell proposed some changes that I am happy to go along with:
> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000170.html
>
> Apart from that no other PSC members have provided feedback. I could
> interpret that as a positive sign, but that would be incredibly
> presumptuous on my part - thus I still await feedback. FWIW I would
> definitely *not* support adoption of RFC1 in its current form.
>
> Paul

Hi,
I have completed merging and formatting, please have a look at it now:
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page

The part on voting still neesds to be done. Please someone link the
corresponding document or paste the section there.
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page#Operation_of_the_PSC

Although it might seem like it, I am not in a hurry and not trying to push
anything (how could I anyway...). Please take all the time you need.

Best regards,
Arnulf.

>> 2)
>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "
>>
>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves
>> the
>> incubation."
>>
>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>
>> 3)
>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General
>> Public
>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need
>> any
>> help from you.
>>
>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>> graduation.
>>
>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>
>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arnulf.
>>
>> --
>> Arnulf Christl
>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>
>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
>

--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com

[Paul Kelly]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there are any
> objections
> I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification and anything
> else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for

OK I have this nearly ready to commit now. I've provisionally separated
out the voting procedures into a separate document that I've called RFC3,
as I felt that the amount of fine detail contained in that section of the
document distracted from the importance of the rest of it.

The biggest stumbling block I've come across is what the phrase "The GRASS
Project", as used quite frequently in the document, actually means.
Here is one idea I had but I suspect it may be overkill with too much
detail - the problem is I'm not sure whether it's best (legally) for the
future to have it as vague or as specific as possible! I suspect we as the
PSC want to limit the amount of work we have to do, hence making it
specific is good?

"The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software known as
the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the
surrounding development, distribution and promotion infrastructure
currently headquarted at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.

Any thoughts?

Paul

> a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote - I suggest
> March 21.
> Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need for a lot of
> discussion,
> but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.
>
> Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye on us so
> that we don't
> forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,
>
> Helena
>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "
>>>
>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves the
>>> incubation."
>>>
>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>
>>> 3)
>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General Public
>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need any
>>> help from you.
>>>
>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>>> graduation.
>>>
>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>
>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Arnulf.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arnulf Christl
>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>
>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
>

[Helena Mitasova]

Paul.

note that after I sent my email, Arnulf put the document on wiki  
where it is easier to access and comment
on, so please put your updates there.
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page

As for the definition of GRASS project, I think what you have  
proposed is good
although we may skip "currently headquarted...." so
that the definition does not have to be changed when e.g. the  
institution changes
its name and in general so that it does not have the word "currently"  
which makes
the definition tied to a certain date rather than the project in  
general.
Markus, what do you think? Should we use Fondazione Bruno Kessler in  
publications
and other documents or are you still using ITC-irst?

Also Arnulf, how does this compare to other projects, doe they have  
official definition?

Thanks

Helena

Helena Mitasova
Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
Raleigh NC 27695
http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/



On Mar 11, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>
>> I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there  
>> are any objections
>> I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification  
>> and anything
>> else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for
>
> OK I have this nearly ready to commit now. I've provisionally  
> separated out the voting procedures into a separate document that  
> I've called RFC3, as I felt that the amount of fine detail  
> contained in that section of the document distracted from the  
> importance of the rest of it.
>
> The biggest stumbling block I've come across is what the phrase  
> "The GRASS Project", as used quite frequently in the document,  
> actually means.
> Here is one idea I had but I suspect it may be overkill with too  
> much detail - the problem is I'm not sure whether it's best  
> (legally) for the future to have it as vague or as specific as  
> possible! I suspect we as the PSC want to limit the amount of work  
> we have to do, hence making it specific is good?
>
> "The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software  
> known as the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together  
> with the surrounding development, distribution and promotion  
> infrastructure currently headquarted at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Paul
>
>> a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote  
>> - I suggest March 21.
>> Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need  
>> for a lot of discussion,
>> but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.
>>
>> Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye  
>> on us so that we don't
>> forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,
>>
>> Helena
>>
>>> Paul
>>>> 2)
>>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect  
>>>> membership in
>>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the  
>>>> foundation? "
>>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community  
>>>> approves the
>>>> incubation."
>>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If  
>>>> you don't
>>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>> 3)
>>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to  
>>>> "General Public
>>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably  
>>>> not need any
>>>> help from you.
>>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for  
>>>> graduation.
>>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any  
>>>> combination
>>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Arnulf.
>>>> --
>>>> Arnulf Christl
>>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
>>

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Helena

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> Paul.
>
> note that after I sent my email, Arnulf put the document on wiki where it is
> easier to access and comment
> on, so please put your updates there.
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page

OK will look at doing that later. But the one in the rfc/ directory in CVS
will still be the "official" version then?

> As for the definition of GRASS project, I think what you have proposed is
> good
> although we may skip "currently headquarted...." so
> that the definition does not have to be changed when e.g. the institution
> changes
> its name and in general so that it does not have the word "currently" which
> makes

OK - the reason I was being so specific was to be sure there is no
confusion with other versions of GRASS there are and have been in the
past: as I said I'm not sure if this is important or not; perhaps Arnulf
will be able to compare it to other projects as you suggested.

Paul

> the definition tied to a certain date rather than the project in general.
> Markus, what do you think? Should we use Fondazione Bruno Kessler in
> publications
> and other documents or are you still using ITC-irst?
>
> Also Arnulf, how does this compare to other projects, doe they have official
> definition?
>
> Thanks
>
> Helena
>
> Helena Mitasova
> Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
> 1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
> Raleigh NC 27695
> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there are any
>>> objections
>>> I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification and
>>> anything
>>> else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for
>>
>> OK I have this nearly ready to commit now. I've provisionally separated out
>> the voting procedures into a separate document that I've called RFC3, as I
>> felt that the amount of fine detail contained in that section of the
>> document distracted from the importance of the rest of it.
>>
>> The biggest stumbling block I've come across is what the phrase "The GRASS
>> Project", as used quite frequently in the document, actually means.
>> Here is one idea I had but I suspect it may be overkill with too much
>> detail - the problem is I'm not sure whether it's best (legally) for the
>> future to have it as vague or as specific as possible! I suspect we as the
>> PSC want to limit the amount of work we have to do, hence making it
>> specific is good?
>>
>> "The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software known as
>> the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the
>> surrounding development, distribution and promotion infrastructure
>> currently headquarted at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>> a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote - I
>>> suggest March 21.
>>> Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need for a lot
>>> of discussion,
>>> but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.
>>>
>>> Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye on us so
>>> that we don't
>>> forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,
>>>
>>> Helena
>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>> 2)
>>>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
>>>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "
>>>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves
>>>>> the
>>>>> incubation."
>>>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
>>>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>>> 3)
>>>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General
>>>>> Public
>>>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need
>>>>> any
>>>>> help from you.
>>>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>>>>> graduation.
>>>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
>>>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Arnulf.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Arnulf Christl
>>>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

On Sun, March 11, 2007 22:41, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Helena
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>
>> Paul.
>>
>> note that after I sent my email, Arnulf put the document on wiki where
>> it is
>> easier to access and comment
>> on, so please put your updates there.
>> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
>
> OK will look at doing that later. But the one in the rfc/ directory in CVS
> will still be the "official" version then?

Hello,
yes the official version should be a readily accessible and stable
document. OSGeo itself uses the portal website but managing the documents
in a code repository makes even more sense.

>> As for the definition of GRASS project, I think what you have proposed
>> is
>> good
>> although we may skip "currently headquarted...." so
>> that the definition does not have to be changed when e.g. the
>> institution
>> changes
>> its name and in general so that it does not have the word "currently"
>> which
>> makes
>
> OK - the reason I was being so specific was to be sure there is no
> confusion with other versions of GRASS there are and have been in the
> past: as I said I'm not sure if this is important or not; perhaps Arnulf
> will be able to compare it to other projects as you suggested.
>
> Paul

I will forward this request to Incubation as none of us has been this
precise in the definition before. But it is a valid point and resolving it
will get us yet a little closer to understanding what a "project" really
is.

Best regards,
Arnulf.

>> the definition tied to a certain date rather than the project in
>> general.
>> Markus, what do you think? Should we use Fondazione Bruno Kessler in
>> publications
>> and other documents or are you still using ITC-irst?
>>
>> Also Arnulf, how does this compare to other projects, doe they have
>> official
>> definition?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Helena
>>
>> Helena Mitasova
>> Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
>> 1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
>> Raleigh NC 27695
>> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that Paul's rewrite had broad support so unless there are
>>>> any
>>>> objections
>>>> I suggest that you upload your version with Scott's modification and
>>>> anything
>>>> else that may be missing as the new RFC1 that we can have up for
>>>
>>> OK I have this nearly ready to commit now. I've provisionally separated
>>> out
>>> the voting procedures into a separate document that I've called RFC3,
>>> as I
>>> felt that the amount of fine detail contained in that section of the
>>> document distracted from the importance of the rest of it.
>>>
>>> The biggest stumbling block I've come across is what the phrase "The
>>> GRASS
>>> Project", as used quite frequently in the document, actually means.
>>> Here is one idea I had but I suspect it may be overkill with too much
>>> detail - the problem is I'm not sure whether it's best (legally) for
>>> the
>>> future to have it as vague or as specific as possible! I suspect we as
>>> the
>>> PSC want to limit the amount of work we have to do, hence making it
>>> specific is good?
>>>
>>> "The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software known
>>> as
>>> the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, together with the
>>> surrounding development, distribution and promotion infrastructure
>>> currently headquarted at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>> a discussion for a week or so and then let us set a date for vote - I
>>>> suggest March 21.
>>>> Everybody may like Paul's version as is, so there may be no need for a
>>>> lot
>>>> of discussion,
>>>> but let us give ourselves some time to read it and think about it.
>>>>
>>>> Arnulf thanks for your assistance and you may need to keep an eye on
>>>> us so
>>>> that we don't
>>>> forget about the vote while we are busy improving GRASS,
>>>>
>>>> Helena
>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the
>>>>>> foundation? "
>>>>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community
>>>>>> approves
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> incubation."
>>>>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General
>>>>>> Public
>>>>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> help from you.
>>>>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>>>>>> graduation.
>>>>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any
>>>>>> combination
>>>>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Arnulf.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Arnulf Christl
>>>>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com

[Massimiliano Cannata]

With reference at the arnulf mail, i was looking for adding the voting procedure....

Here it is how it could be....


= Operation of the PSC =

The PSC has its own public [http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc Mailing List].

A dedicated [http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc Mailing List] exists for the purpose of PSC discussions. When a decision is required of the PSC, it will be presented by any member to the
mailing list in the form of a proposal. A decision will then be achieved
by discussion of the proposal on the mailing list until a consensus is
reached. Voting on issues is also permissable and may be used as a means
to reach a consensus or, only in case of extreme cases of disagreement, to
force a decision. The [[PSC Agenda]] lists all open motions.
The voting procedure is outlined as follows:
* Any PSC member may call a vote on any proposal by submitting the call to the grass-psc mailing list;
* A voting session is opened on the proposed topic;
* All the PSC members are requested to express their vote with one of the options: -1, -0, 0, +0, +1;
** 0 express no preference,
** -0 and +0 express some degree of preference (- negative and + positive),
** +1 express a clear preference (- negative and + positive).
* The memeber calling a vote is responsible for collating votes and presenting the result to the
PSC;
* The voting procedure is closed when a consensus is reached or in case of disagreement XXX?????
* The memeber calling a vote will present the result to the graas-dev mailing list


Some question arise to me:
- One major point is the end of a voting session..... when it happens? only with consensum? or maximum after 2 week?
- As Paul asked: Should a single -1 kill a vote (ie. unanimous)?  There are ten of us on the PSC.  In theory, a +9/-1 vote will get killed.

Please add comments and answer, so that i could paste it in the wiki...

Cheers,
Massimiliano





Arnulf Christl wrote:

> On Fri, March 9, 2007 05:29, Paul Kelly wrote:
>  
>> Hello Arnulf
>> (Thanks for giving this a kick...)
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>    
>>> These are the open issues:
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/GRASS_Incubation_Progress#Community_Functioning
>>> * "See RFC1 for a proposal.
>>> * "Acceptance pending"
>>>
>>> Could you please consider voting for RFC1 in a regular meeting or pick
>>> up
>>> the discussion so that we can get through with this?
>>>      
>> I strongly feel that RFC1 as it currently exists in the CVS is not
>> workable as a guidance document for the GRASS PSC, for reasons related to
>> the composition of the GRASS PSC and the current decision-making process
>> for GRASS development as I have previously posted to this list.
>> Hence I have already proposed a re-write of RFC1:
>> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000168.html
>>
>> Scott Mitchell proposed some changes that I am happy to go along with:
>> http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass-psc/2006-December/000170.html
>>
>> Apart from that no other PSC members have provided feedback. I could
>> interpret that as a positive sign, but that would be incredibly
>> presumptuous on my part - thus I still await feedback. FWIW I would
>> definitely *not* support adoption of RFC1 in its current form.
>>
>> Paul
>>    
>
> Hi,
> I have completed merging and formatting, please have a look at it now:
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
>
> The part on voting still neesds to be done. Please someone link the
> corresponding document or paste the section there.
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page#Operation_of_the_PSC
>
> Although it might seem like it, I am not in a hurry and not trying to push
> anything (how could I anyway...). Please take all the time you need.
>
> Best regards,
> Arnulf.
>
>  
>>> 2)
>>> Question: "Have project documents been updated to reflect membership in
>>> the foundation, and the relationship of the project to the foundation? "
>>>
>>> Answer: "Partially. This will occur once the GRASS Community approves
>>> the
>>> incubation."
>>>
>>> I will remove that answer and replace it with a clear Yes. If you don't
>>> mind. Well, its a Wiki, so I already did that.
>>>
>>> 3)
>>> There are 148 files as of 3/2007 left without reference to "General
>>> Public
>>> License". Markus is already working on them. He will probably not need
>>> any
>>> help from you.
>>>
>>> When these issues are resolved I would like to propose GRASS for
>>> graduation.
>>>
>>> If you have any qualms with this process, OSGeo, me or any combination
>>> thereof, feel free to contact me.
>>>
>>> I will report this to the OSGeo Incubation Committee now.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Arnulf.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arnulf Christl
>>> http://www.wheregroup.com
>>>
>>> [1] this is actually a reverence to the straight history of GRASS
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>>
>>>      
>
>
>  

[massimiliano.cannata.vcf]

---

begin:vcard
fn:Massimiliano Cannata
n:Cannata;Massimiliano
org:SUPSI - Scuola Universitaria Professionale della SVizzera Italiana;Istituto Scienze della Terra
adr:;;Trevano;Canobbio;;CP 72;Switzerland
email;internet:[hidden email]
title:Responsabile area geomatica
tel;work:[phone]
tel;fax:[phone]
url:http://www.ist.supsi.ch
version:2.1
end:vcard

---

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Massimiliano

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:

> With reference at the arnulf mail, i was looking for adding the voting
> procedure....

Just now I have added this to CVS...
(sorry for not using the wiki - I find CVS easier and with less scope for
mistakes as I am editing my local copy directly and not copying and
pasting into a web browser. Also think it seems wrong and confusing to
have two copies of everything in Wiki and Doxygen format, especially when
doxygen format can be easily converted to HTML.)

http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox
http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/grass6/rfc/RFC3_PSC.dox

[...]
> Some question arise to me:
> - One major point is the end of a voting session..... when it happens? only
> with consensum? or maximum after 2 week?

In the new version (RFC3) I used the phrase "close the vote" - I assume
the person who calls the vote will close it some time after four days have
passed (I thnk we agreed on the four days period before?) but the chairman
can cut this short if necessary. The procedure for "closing the vote"
should probably be explained though.

> - As Paul asked: Should a single -1 kill a vote (ie. unanimous)?  There are
> ten of us on the PSC.  In theory, a +9/-1 vote will get killed.

Yes I agree with that. We have to trust that if someone votes -1 they are
likely to have a valid objection that others haven't considered yet. I
don't have a problem with the voting process as written in the document.
Just the way we were operating it. E.g. the document says a +1 means the
voter is willing to support the implementation of the proposal. The
implication being, that if you vote +1 you are going to be putting in
an active effort to get whatever you voted on to happen. Maybe that should
be worded even more strongly? I just felt we were getting carried away
with sending out loads of e-mails with +1 in them and no other words and
it looked silly.

Paul

[Markus Neteler-2]

On 3/11/07, Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Paul.
>
> note that after I sent my email, Arnulf put the document on wiki
> where it is easier to access and comment
> on, so please put your updates there.
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
>
> As for the definition of GRASS project, I think what you have
> proposed is good
> although we may skip "currently headquarted...." so
> that the definition does not have to be changed when e.g. the
> institution changes
> its name and in general so that it does not have the word "currently"
> which makes
> the definition tied to a certain date rather than the project in
> general.
> Markus, what do you think? Should we use Fondazione Bruno Kessler in
> publications and other documents or are you still using ITC-irst?

Helena, all,

"ITC" no longer exists, it is the foundation now. IRST was one of three
institutes of ITC (naturally called "center" to increase confusion :-).
I assume that IRST remains, maybe as FBK-irst or so. To be decided
by the politicians.

In summary: I agree that headquarted isn't really needed in the
general summary.

Markus

>
> Also Arnulf, how does this compare to other projects, doe they have
> official definition?
>
> Thanks
>
> Helena
>
> Helena Mitasova
> Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atm. Sciences
> 1125 Jordan Hall, NCSU Box 8208,
> Raleigh NC 27695
> http://skagit.meas.ncsu.edu/~helena/

[Paul Kelly]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Markus Neteler wrote:

> "ITC" no longer exists, it is the foundation now. IRST was one of three
> institutes of ITC (naturally called "center" to increase confusion :-).
> I assume that IRST remains, maybe as FBK-irst or so. To be decided
> by the politicians.
>
> In summary: I agree that headquarted isn't really needed in the
> general summary.

OK: coming back to this (I feel the discussion about trademarks, while
important, is getting a little off the point). What I had in mind with
describing "our" GRASS in detail (the headquartered... bit) was thinking
about all the other versions of GRASS there exist in the wild (public
domain GRASS, Blackland GRASS, JGrass etc.) and making it clear that the
GRASS PSC is not claiming any kind of authority over them. I.e. I was
concerned more that other versions of GRASS could potentially object to
the PSC documents defining GRASS in very vague terms. I wasn't really
worried about other people using the name GRASS - I don't think that's a
big issue. Especially considering as the public domain GRASS was also
called GRASS, I think any project based on that codebase has as much a
right to use the name as "our" GRASS community. As long as we keep
improving and updating GRASS and making it the GRASS version of choice to
use, then we have little to worry about from trademark infringement. TBH I
don't think there's much we can do about it really even if we wanted to.

So, the issue remains: I do feel it's very important that we put something
in the PSC document to indicate that what the document describes is "our"
GRASS community, i.e. code hosted on the CVS at Intevation, mailing lists
hosted at Markus' institution, postal contact address there etc. If saying
"headquartered at..." is not the best way to indicate this, we need a
viable alternative IMHO.

For information: a HTML version of the proposed document is available at:
http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/rfc1_psc.html
And also the new voting procedures which is important too:
http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/rfc3_psc.html

Still plenty of time for more discussion.

Paul

[hmitaso]

Paul Kelly wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>> "ITC" no longer exists, it is the foundation now. IRST was one of three
>> institutes of ITC (naturally called "center" to increase confusion :-).
>> I assume that IRST remains, maybe as FBK-irst or so. To be decided
>> by the politicians.
>>
>> In summary: I agree that headquarted isn't really needed in the
>> general summary.
>
> OK: coming back to this (I feel the discussion about trademarks, while
> important, is getting a little off the point). What I had in mind with
> describing "our" GRASS in detail (the headquartered... bit) was
> thinking about all the other versions of GRASS there exist in the wild
> (public domain GRASS, Blackland GRASS, JGrass etc.) and making it
> clear that the GRASS PSC is not claiming any kind of authority over
> them. I.e. I was concerned more that other versions of GRASS could
> potentially object to the PSC documents defining GRASS in very vague
> terms. I wasn't really worried about other people using the name GRASS
> - I don't think that's a big issue. Especially considering as the
> public domain GRASS was also called GRASS, I think any project based
> on that codebase has as much a right to use the name as "our" GRASS
> community. As long as we keep improving and updating GRASS and making
> it the GRASS version of choice to use, then we have little to worry
> about from trademark infringement. TBH I don't think there's much we
> can do about it really even if we wanted to.
>
> So, the issue remains: I do feel it's very important that we put
> something in the PSC document to indicate that what the document
> describes is "our" GRASS community, i.e. code hosted on the CVS at
> Intevation, mailing lists hosted at Markus' institution, postal
> contact address there etc. If saying "headquartered at..." is not the
> best way to indicate this, we need a viable alternative IMHO.

I am wondering whether a good identification of this particular GRASS
project would be that
it is an OSGEO project: so the text could say GRASS, an OSGEO project
(or official OSGEO project).
I think if any other GRASS project would want to get accepted as OSGEO
project,
the condition would certainly be to resolve the name conflict so there
won't be two GRASS projects
recognized as OSGEO projects.
Markus what do you think? We can still include your institution in the
definition but linking the project
definition to OSGEO may help to identify it more strictly.

Helena

>
> For information: a HTML version of the proposed document is available at:
> http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/rfc1_psc.html
> And also the new voting procedures which is important too:
> http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/rfc3_psc.html
>
> Still plenty of time for more discussion.
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[Scott Mitchell-3]

Oops, Helena's post took 2 days to get here...

On 19-Mar-07, at 13:07 , Helena Mitasova wrote:

>>
> I am wondering whether a good identification of this particular  
> GRASS project would be that
> it is an OSGEO project: so the text could say GRASS, an OSGEO  
> project (or official OSGEO project).
> I think if any other GRASS project would want to get accepted as  
> OSGEO project,
> the condition would certainly be to resolve the name conflict so  
> there won't be two GRASS projects
> recognized as OSGEO projects.
> Markus what do you think? We can still include your institution in  
> the definition but linking the project
> definition to OSGEO may help to identify it more strictly.
>
> Helena
>

I agree with what Paul has suggested in the other thread, that this  
makes sense AFTER we're accepted as an OSGEO project, and now that  
you mention it, I realize that should just take care of much of what  
we've been talking about.  So now we just need to make it clear about  
what we're talking about JOINING OSGEO, which can be summed up  
according to the "server history", I guess.  Might as well keep it  
simple.  I have edited the RFC accordingly.