RFC1 vote reminder

[Arnulf Christl (OSGeo)]

Hi,
just a quick reminder that you were planning to vote on RFC1 today:
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda

Best regards,
Arnulf.

[Michael Barton]

I just looked at what is in the cvs.

1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
removed.

2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into being. In our
case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or unlimited term?

Michael


On 3/21/07 8:58 AM, "Arnulf Christl" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> just a quick reminder that you were planning to vote on RFC1 today:
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda
>
> Best regards,
> Arnulf.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Michael,
Thanks for your response to this.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:

> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>
> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
> removed.

I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just remove
"headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the description loses a
lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important. Probably I'm just being
paranoid about it.

I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything clearer and
simpler than defining the GRASS project as the community based around the
CVS server, mailing lists and website: take those away and we'd be
nothing. I guess the issue is whether describing them as hosted by
Intevation and IRST is the best way of being specific, or if there's
another way. As an alternative to "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps
instead:

-------------------------------------------
Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
--- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
+++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
@@ -16,8 +16,9 @@

  "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.
+development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently hosted (as
+of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
+Osnabrück, Germany.

  \section tor Terms of Reference
-------------------------------------------

But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody said
earlier about having to change the RFC document if the location of the CVS
server or website/mailing list hosting changed - I don't see a problem
with that. The GRASS community is de facto defined by our mailing lists,
CVS server and website and if these are changed then that is a significant
change and it's not unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that
situation.

But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about this issue
and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really addressed it so perhaps
I'm being way OTT about it - and if we don't come to agreement soon on an
alternative wording and nobody else objects then I *am* willing to
eventually just delete that headquarted bit and simplify the whole
description.

> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into being. In our
> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or unlimited term?

The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines
("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting on the
mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that was in effect
just a guidance measure - this document is what really determines that, as
I understand it. And there deliberately is no minimum/maximum number of
PSC members nor term of service - changes to composition are just handled
from now on by voting on the PSC list.

A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's related to
the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS, mailing lists and
website. So as long as the current maintainers of those (Bernhard and
Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in accordance with the wishes of
the PSC, that's enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?



Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it a
formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the list
over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that we adopt the
rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be official guidance
documents for the operation of the PSC. And with the four working days -
we have until 7:30pm Central European Time on Tuesday 27th March to
discuss and vote on this.

I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting guidelines
(+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will do my best to
maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what I meant by the various
forms of words clearer if there is any dispute.

Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel obliged
to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to "support the
implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you do think these are
really great documents and will make GRASS much better and are
enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by all means vote +1!! ;) I
just feel the voting process becomes a bit meaningless if everyone rushes
to put in their +1.

Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come across
like that :)

Thanks,

Paul

[Scott Mitchell-3]

On 21-Mar-07, at 12:15 , Michael Barton wrote:

> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>
> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
> removed.

I agree with Paul's point about somehow bounding the work over which  
we're purporting to have any say over.  It seems to me that if we say  
something along the lines of it being the GPL'd international  
software project (possibly specifying heritage in GRASS 4.x out of  
CERL), and that at the time of incubation/formation of the PSC/
writing of the RFC1 it comprises the "code hosted on the CVS at  
Intevation, mailing lists ... and postal contact address ... hosted  
at Markus' institution", whatever it's called today, then that at  
least specifies the heritage and makes it clear we're not talking  
about any of the other spinoffs... no?

We could perhaps add that in case of future changes to hosting  
locations, the PSC will arrange suitable alterations to the OSGEO  
pointers?

Would that do?

> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
> being. In our
> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
> unlimited term?

I was going to put in a quick fix straight to the CVS but my update  
is taking too long and I have to go to a meeting now.  I suggest we  
just edit the end of the document to say:

Initial PSC membership was decided based on a nomination and informal  
voting period on the community's mailing lists.  Michael Barton,  
Dylan Beaudette, Hamish Bowman, Massimiliano Cannata, Brad Douglas,  
Paul Kelly, Helena Mitasova, Scott Mitchell, Markus
Neteler, and Maciej Sieczka are declared to be the founding Project  
Steering
Committee.

And perhaps just a statement that for now there is no limit on the  
term, but that this can be proposed at any time?  Or reviewed after a  
specified time period?

Gotta run, I'll check back in tonight.

[Scott Mitchell-3]

This came in just as I sent out my own message.  I am leaning towards  
supporting it either as edited by Paul or with other minor tuning,  
but have to leave now for a long meeting.  I'll check back in later  
to see if the issue is still open.

One suggestion, though, perhaps I misunderstand the role of the RFC,  
but it would seem to me that we could define things "as they were" at  
the voting stage of the RFC and just edit other documents/pointers  
etc in the event of new hosting arrangements etc.

Cheers,
Scott


On 21-Mar-07, at 14:22 , Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> Thanks for your response to this.
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>
>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>
>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
>> removed.
>
> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just  
> remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the  
> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important.  
> Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>
> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything  
> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the  
> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:  
> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether  
> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way of  
> being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative to  
> "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>
>  "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.
> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently  
> hosted (as
> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>
>  \section tor Terms of Reference
> -------------------------------------------
>
> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody  
> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the  
> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting changed  
> - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is de facto  
> defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and if these  
> are changed then that is a significant change and it's not  
> unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>
> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about  
> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really  
> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we  
> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody  
> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that  
> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>
>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
>> being. In our
>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
>> unlimited term?
>
> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines  
> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting  
> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that  
> was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is what  
> really determines that, as I understand it. And there deliberately  
> is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term of service -  
> changes to composition are just handled from now on by voting on  
> the PSC list.
>
> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's  
> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS,  
> mailing lists and website. So as long as the current maintainers of  
> those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in  
> accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's enough, I think.  
> Maybe this should be more explicit?
>
>
>
> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it  
> a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the  
> list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that  
> we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be  
> official guidance documents for the operation of the PSC. And with  
> the four working days - we have until 7:30pm Central European Time  
> on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.
>
> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting  
> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will  
> do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what I  
> meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is any dispute.
>
> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel  
> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to  
> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you  
> do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS much  
> better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by all  
> means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes a bit  
> meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
>
> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come  
> across like that :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[Helena Mitasova]

I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo  
project" which makes
it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will ensure  
that it does not
get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there will  
be only one
GRASS recognized by OSGeo.
but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I get  
all the emails but cannot post to the list.

Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly  
that the members
of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as if  
they were appointed or selfdeclared.
Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my  
subscription meanwhile.

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 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> Thanks for your response to this.
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>
>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>
>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
>> removed.
>
> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just  
> remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the  
> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important.  
> Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>
> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything  
> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the  
> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:  
> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether  
> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way of  
> being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative to  
> "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>
>  "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.
> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently  
> hosted (as
> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>
>  \section tor Terms of Reference
> -------------------------------------------
>
> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody  
> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the  
> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting changed  
> - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is de facto  
> defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and if these  
> are changed then that is a significant change and it's not  
> unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>
> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about  
> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really  
> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we  
> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody  
> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that  
> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>
>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
>> being. In our
>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
>> unlimited term?
>
> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines  
> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting  
> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that  
> was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is what  
> really determines that, as I understand it. And there deliberately  
> is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term of service -  
> changes to composition are just handled from now on by voting on  
> the PSC list.
>
> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's  
> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS,  
> mailing lists and website. So as long as the current maintainers of  
> those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in  
> accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's enough, I think.  
> Maybe this should be more explicit?
>
>
>
> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it  
> a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the  
> list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that  
> we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be  
> official guidance documents for the operation of the PSC. And with  
> the four working days - we have until 7:30pm Central European Time  
> on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.
>
> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting  
> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will  
> do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what I  
> meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is any dispute.
>
> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel  
> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to  
> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you  
> do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS much  
> better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by all  
> means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes a bit  
> meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
>
> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come  
> across like that :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Scott

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Scott Mitchell wrote:

> On 21-Mar-07, at 12:15 , Michael Barton wrote:
>
>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>
>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
>> removed.
>
> I agree with Paul's point about somehow bounding the work over which we're
> purporting to have any say over.  It seems to me that if we say something
> along the lines of it being the GPL'd international software project
> (possibly specifying heritage in GRASS 4.x out of CERL), and that at the time
> of incubation/formation of the PSC/writing of the RFC1 it comprises the "code
> hosted on the CVS at Intevation, mailing lists ... and postal contact address
> ... hosted at Markus' institution", whatever it's called today, then that at
> least specifies the heritage and makes it clear we're not talking about any
> of the other spinoffs... no?

I agree with that - similar to my latest proposal but less cumbersome and
therefore better I think.

> We could perhaps add that in case of future changes to hosting locations, the
> PSC will arrange suitable alterations to the OSGEO pointers?

Might be worthwhile although when I think about it again we're really just
using the current locations of those hosting places to define what our
GRASS project is - actually they don't really need to be updated in the
PSC later as they change - we're just defining what GRASS is right now as
you say.

>
> Would that do?
>
>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into being. In our
>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or unlimited term?
>
> I was going to put in a quick fix straight to the CVS but my update is taking
> too long and I have to go to a meeting now.  I suggest we just edit the end
> of the document to say:
>
> Initial PSC membership was decided based on a nomination and informal voting
> period on the community's mailing lists.  Michael Barton, Dylan Beaudette,
> Hamish Bowman, Massimiliano Cannata, Brad Douglas, Paul Kelly, Helena
> Mitasova, Scott Mitchell, Markus
> Neteler, and Maciej Sieczka are declared to be the founding Project Steering
> Committee.
>
> And perhaps just a statement that for now there is no limit on the term, but
> that this can be proposed at any time?  Or reviewed after a specified time
> period?

Yeah that looks good. I agree it makes it clearer to mention the voting.

Paul

[Paul Kelly]

Hello Helena
Yes, I got your earlier e-mail - sorry I didn't realise it hadn't gone to
the list.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo project"
> which makes
> it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will ensure that it
> does not
> get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there will be only
> one
> GRASS recognized by OSGeo.

I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in the
future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying it - and
good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind of chicken and
egg situation - we have to have this document correct and the PSC properly
in place for GRASS to be accepted as an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't
seem right to include that in there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was
saying earlier we could update the PSC later to change things like this
then that could be done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's
viewpoint that the GRASS project paragraph should just describe
unambiguously at this moment in time which project is being governed by
the PSC and brought into OSGeo.

Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.

> but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I get all the
> emails but cannot post to the list.
>
> Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly that the
> members
> of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as if they
> were appointed or selfdeclared.

Yes I agree now it's good to make this clear - and Scott's proposed
amendment does this nicely I think.

Paul

> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my subscription
> meanwhile.
>
> 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 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>> Thanks for your response to this.
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>>
>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>>
>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was to be
>>> removed.
>>
>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just remove
>> "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the description loses a
>> lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't important. Probably I'm just being
>> paranoid about it.
>>
>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything clearer and
>> simpler than defining the GRASS project as the community based around the
>> CVS server, mailing lists and website: take those away and we'd be nothing.
>> I guess the issue is whether describing them as hosted by Intevation and
>> IRST is the best way of being specific, or if there's another way. As an
>> alternative to "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>> retrieving revision 1.5
>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>>
>>  "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.
>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently hosted
>> (as
>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation GmbH,
>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>>
>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody said
>> earlier about having to change the RFC document if the location of the CVS
>> server or website/mailing list hosting changed - I don't see a problem with
>> that. The GRASS community is de facto defined by our mailing lists, CVS
>> server and website and if these are changed then that is a significant
>> change and it's not unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that
>> situation.
>>
>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about this issue
>> and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really addressed it so perhaps
>> I'm being way OTT about it - and if we don't come to agreement soon on an
>> alternative wording and nobody else objects then I *am* willing to
>> eventually just delete that headquarted bit and simplify the whole
>> description.
>>
>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into being. In
>>> our
>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or unlimited
>>> term?
>>
>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines
>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting on the
>> mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but that was in effect
>> just a guidance measure - this document is what really determines that, as
>> I understand it. And there deliberately is no minimum/maximum number of PSC
>> members nor term of service - changes to composition are just handled from
>> now on by voting on the PSC list.
>>
>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's related to
>> the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in CVS, mailing lists and
>> website. So as long as the current maintainers of those (Bernhard and
>> Markus, I suppose) agree to maintain them in accordance with the wishes of
>> the PSC, that's enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it a formal
>> proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on the list over the
>> wording of the definition of the GRASS project, that we adopt the rest of
>> RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be official guidance documents for
>> the operation of the PSC. And with the four working days - we have until
>> 7:30pm Central European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on
>> this.
>>
>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting guidelines (+1
>> means willing to support the implementation) I will do my best to maintain
>> the documents in CVS and try and make what I meant by the various forms of
>> words clearer if there is any dispute.
>>
>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel obliged
>> to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to "support the
>> implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you do think these are
>> really great documents and will make GRASS much better and are enthusiastic
>> to work with them etc. etc. then by all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the
>> voting process becomes a bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their
>> +1.
>>
>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't come across
>> like that :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> grass-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>
>

[Helena Mitasova]

On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:

> Hello Helena
> Yes, I got your earlier e-mail - sorry I didn't realise it hadn't  
> gone to the list.
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>
>> I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo  
>> project" which makes
>> it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will  
>> ensure that it does not
>> get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there  
>> will be only one
>> GRASS recognized by OSGeo.
>
> I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in  
> the future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying  
> it - and good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind  
> of chicken and egg situation - we have to have this document  
> correct and the PSC properly in place for GRASS to be accepted as  
> an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't seem right to include that in  
> there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was saying earlier we could  
> update the PSC later to change things like this then that could be  
> done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's viewpoint that the  
> GRASS project paragraph should just describe unambiguously at this  
> moment in time which project is being governed by the PSC and  
> brought into OSGeo.
>
> Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.

you are right - it would be good for this vote to include what is  
GRASS right now (then I would say -
Markus let us know what do you think would be best to use -  
Intevation CVS link or your foundation
or both?)
After we become official OSGeo project we can develop a more long  
term definition - maybe OSGeo will have some guidance
that will be useful for all projects.

Helena

>
>> but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I  
>> get all the emails but cannot post to the list.
>>
>> Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly  
>> that the members
>> of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as  
>> if they were appointed or selfdeclared.
>
> Yes I agree now it's good to make this clear - and Scott's proposed  
> amendment does this nicely I think.
>
> Paul
>
>> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my  
>> subscription meanwhile.
>>
>> 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 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>> Thanks for your response to this.
>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was  
>>>> to be
>>>> removed.
>>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we  
>>> just remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the  
>>> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't  
>>> important. Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything  
>>> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the  
>>> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:  
>>> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether  
>>> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way  
>>> of being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative  
>>> to "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.5
>>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>>>  "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.
>>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently  
>>> hosted (as
>>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation  
>>> GmbH,
>>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody  
>>> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the  
>>> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting  
>>> changed - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is  
>>> de facto defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and  
>>> if these are changed then that is a significant change and it's  
>>> not unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about  
>>> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really  
>>> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we  
>>> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody  
>>> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that  
>>> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
>>>> being. In our
>>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community,  
>>>> following a
>>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
>>>> unlimited term?
>>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines  
>>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting  
>>> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but  
>>> that was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is  
>>> what really determines that, as I understand it. And there  
>>> deliberately is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term  
>>> of service - changes to composition are just handled from now on  
>>> by voting on the PSC list.
>>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's  
>>> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in  
>>> CVS, mailing lists and website. So as long as the current  
>>> maintainers of those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to  
>>> maintain them in accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's  
>>> enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make  
>>> it a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus  
>>> on the list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS  
>>> project, that we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in  
>>> CVS, to be official guidance documents for the operation of the  
>>> PSC. And with the four working days - we have until 7:30pm  
>>> Central European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote  
>>> on this.
>>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting  
>>> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I  
>>> will do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make  
>>> what I meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is  
>>> any dispute.
>>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel  
>>> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to  
>>> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if  
>>> you do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS  
>>> much better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then  
>>> by all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes  
>>> a bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
>>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't  
>>> come across like that :)
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> grass-psc mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
>>
>>

[Scott Mitchell-3]

Sounds like consensus is building.

I have edited the RFC in CVS then, feel free to comment/revise/revert:

[smitch@gracilis rfc]$ cvs diff -u RFC1_PSC.dox
Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
===================================================================
RCS file: /grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
--- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
+++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 20:48:57 -0000
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
determines membership, and makes decisions on GRASS project issues.
"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.
+Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, which at the time of  
this writing
+has code hosted in a CVS repository at Intevation GmbH, and a web  
and mailing
+list presence at http://grass.itc.it.
\section tor Terms of Reference
@@ -115,12 +115,14 @@
\section composition Composition of the Committee
-Michael Barton, Dylan Beaudette, Hamish Bowman, Massimiliano  
Cannata, Brad
-Douglas, Paul Kelly, Helena Mitasova, Scott Mitchell, Markus  
Neteler, and
-Maciej Sieczka are declared to be the founding Project Steering  
Committee.
+Initial PSC membership was decided based on a nomination and  
informal voting
+period on the community's mailing lists.  Michael Barton, Dylan  
Beaudette,
+Hamish Bowman, Massimiliano Cannata, Brad Douglas, Paul Kelly,  
Helena Mitasova,
+Scott Mitchell, Markus Neteler, and Maciej Sieczka are declared to  
be the
+founding Project Steering Committee.



On 21-Mar-07, at 15:11 , Helena Mitasova wrote:

>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hello Helena
>> Yes, I got your earlier e-mail - sorry I didn't realise it hadn't  
>> gone to the list.
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>>
>>> I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo  
>>> project" which makes
>>> it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will  
>>> ensure that it does not
>>> get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there  
>>> will be only one
>>> GRASS recognized by OSGeo.
>>
>> I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in  
>> the future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying  
>> it - and good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind  
>> of chicken and egg situation - we have to have this document  
>> correct and the PSC properly in place for GRASS to be accepted as  
>> an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't seem right to include that in  
>> there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was saying earlier we could  
>> update the PSC later to change things like this then that could be  
>> done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's viewpoint that the  
>> GRASS project paragraph should just describe unambiguously at this  
>> moment in time which project is being governed by the PSC and  
>> brought into OSGeo.
>>
>> Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.
>
> you are right - it would be good for this vote to include what is  
> GRASS right now (then I would say -
> Markus let us know what do you think would be best to use -  
> Intevation CVS link or your foundation
> or both?)
> After we become official OSGeo project we can develop a more long  
> term definition - maybe OSGeo will have some guidance
> that will be useful for all projects.
>
> Helena
>>
>>> but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I  
>>> get all the emails but cannot post to the list.
>>>
>>> Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly  
>>> that the members
>>> of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as  
>>> if they were appointed or selfdeclared.
>>
>> Yes I agree now it's good to make this clear - and Scott's  
>> proposed amendment does this nicely I think.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my  
>>> subscription meanwhile.
>>>
>>> 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 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Michael,
>>>> Thanks for your response to this.
>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>>>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was  
>>>>> to be
>>>>> removed.
>>>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we  
>>>> just remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the  
>>>> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't  
>>>> important. Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>>>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything  
>>>> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the  
>>>> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and  
>>>> website: take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue  
>>>> is whether describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is  
>>>> the best way of being specific, or if there's another way. As an  
>>>> alternative to "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>>>> retrieving revision 1.5
>>>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>>>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>>>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>>>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>>>>  "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.
>>>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure  
>>>> currently hosted (as
>>>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation  
>>>> GmbH,
>>>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>>>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody  
>>>> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the  
>>>> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting  
>>>> changed - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community  
>>>> is de facto defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website  
>>>> and if these are changed then that is a significant change and  
>>>> it's not unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>>>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about  
>>>> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really  
>>>> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we  
>>>> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and  
>>>> nobody else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just  
>>>> delete that headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>>>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
>>>>> being. In our
>>>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community,  
>>>>> following a
>>>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
>>>>> unlimited term?
>>>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines  
>>>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the  
>>>> voting on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial  
>>>> PSC but that was in effect just a guidance measure - this  
>>>> document is what really determines that, as I understand it. And  
>>>> there deliberately is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members  
>>>> nor term of service - changes to composition are just handled  
>>>> from now on by voting on the PSC list.
>>>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's  
>>>> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in  
>>>> CVS, mailing lists and website. So as long as the current  
>>>> maintainers of those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to  
>>>> maintain them in accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's  
>>>> enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>>>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make  
>>>> it a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus  
>>>> on the list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS  
>>>> project, that we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in  
>>>> CVS, to be official guidance documents for the operation of the  
>>>> PSC. And with the four working days - we have until 7:30pm  
>>>> Central European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote  
>>>> on this.
>>>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting  
>>>> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I  
>>>> will do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and  
>>>> make what I meant by the various forms of words clearer if there  
>>>> is any dispute.
>>>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't  
>>>> feel obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to  
>>>> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if  
>>>> you do think these are really great documents and will make  
>>>> GRASS much better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc.  
>>>> etc. then by all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting  
>>>> process becomes a bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in  
>>>> their +1.
>>>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't  
>>>> come across like that :)
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Paul
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

[Markus Neteler-2]

On 3/21/07, Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have emailed a suggestion to identify it as a "GRASS, an OSGeo
> project" which makes
> it unique and well defined and the participation in OSGeo will ensure
> that it does not
> get mixed with other past or future GRASS-named efforts as there will
> be only one GRASS recognized by OSGeo.

This sounds good to me as idea (to avoid further TNG confusion).

> but apparently that email did not get posted - for some reason I get
> all the emails but cannot post to the list.

Helena, you posted from your non-subscribed
  hmitaso * ncsu.edu
address. I have approved the original posting now (just found it)
and added above extra address for you to be accepted.


> Also as Michael has pointed out the document does not say clearly
> that the members
> of the PSC listed in the document were elected - it now sounds as if
> they were appointed or selfdeclared.
> Paul, I hope at least you will get this, I will try to fix my
> subscription meanwhile.

Already fixed.

Markus

[Markus Neteler-2]

On 3/21/07, Helena Mitasova <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Paul Kelly wrote:
...

> > I see where you're coming from with that and definitely think in
> > the future it will be a really clear unambiguous way of specifying
> > it - and good for GRASS - but right now I feel it might be a kind
> > of chicken and egg situation - we have to have this document
> > correct and the PSC properly in place for GRASS to be accepted as
> > an OSGeo project, so it just doesn't seem right to include that in
> > there now. I'm not sure - if I as I was saying earlier we could
> > update the PSC later to change things like this then that could be
> > done, but now I am coming round more to Scott's viewpoint that the
> > GRASS project paragraph should just describe unambiguously at this
> > moment in time which project is being governed by the PSC and
> > brought into OSGeo.
> >
> > Good idea though - my mind still confused over the issue.
>
> you are right - it would be good for this vote to include what is
> GRASS right now (then I would say -
> Markus let us know what do you think would be best to use -
> Intevation CVS link or your foundation or both?)

I would say both because GRASS is source code + community + Web
and the latter are basically hosted at FBK-irst (formerly known as ITC-irst).

Markus

> After we become official OSGeo project we can develop a more long
> term definition - maybe OSGeo will have some guidance
> that will be useful for all projects.
>
> Helena

[Helena Mitasova]

I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are  
proposed now in CVS.

To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do so,

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 21, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Scott Mitchell wrote:

> This came in just as I sent out my own message.  I am leaning  
> towards supporting it either as edited by Paul or with other minor  
> tuning, but have to leave now for a long meeting.  I'll check back  
> in later to see if the issue is still open.
>
> One suggestion, though, perhaps I misunderstand the role of the  
> RFC, but it would seem to me that we could define things "as they  
> were" at the voting stage of the RFC and just edit other documents/
> pointers etc in the event of new hosting arrangements etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
> On 21-Mar-07, at 14:22 , Paul Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>> Thanks for your response to this.
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>>
>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>>
>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was  
>>> to be
>>> removed.
>>
>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just  
>> remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the  
>> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't  
>> important. Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>>
>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything  
>> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the  
>> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:  
>> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether  
>> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way  
>> of being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative to  
>> "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>> retrieving revision 1.5
>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>>
>>  "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.
>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently  
>> hosted (as
>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation  
>> GmbH,
>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>>
>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody  
>> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the  
>> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting changed  
>> - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is de facto  
>> defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and if these  
>> are changed then that is a significant change and it's not  
>> unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>>
>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about  
>> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really  
>> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we  
>> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody  
>> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that  
>> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>>
>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into  
>>> being. In our
>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or  
>>> unlimited term?
>>
>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines  
>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting  
>> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but  
>> that was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is what  
>> really determines that, as I understand it. And there deliberately  
>> is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term of service -  
>> changes to composition are just handled from now on by voting on  
>> the PSC list.
>>
>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's  
>> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in  
>> CVS, mailing lists and website. So as long as the current  
>> maintainers of those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to  
>> maintain them in accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's  
>> enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it  
>> a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on  
>> the list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project,  
>> that we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be  
>> official guidance documents for the operation of the PSC. And with  
>> the four working days - we have until 7:30pm Central European Time  
>> on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.
>>
>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting  
>> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will  
>> do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what  
>> I meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is any  
>> dispute.
>>
>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel  
>> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to  
>> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you  
>> do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS much  
>> better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by  
>> all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes a  
>> bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
>>
>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't  
>> come across like that :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

[Michael Barton]

I vote 1+ for RFC1 and 1+ for RFC3 as posted on the GRASS CVS.

Michael


On 3/21/07 8:47 PM, "Helena Mitasova" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are
> proposed now in CVS.
>
> To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do so,
>
> 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 21, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Scott Mitchell wrote:
>
>> This came in just as I sent out my own message.  I am leaning
>> towards supporting it either as edited by Paul or with other minor
>> tuning, but have to leave now for a long meeting.  I'll check back
>> in later to see if the issue is still open.
>>
>> One suggestion, though, perhaps I misunderstand the role of the
>> RFC, but it would seem to me that we could define things "as they
>> were" at the voting stage of the RFC and just edit other documents/
>> pointers etc in the event of new hosting arrangements etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On 21-Mar-07, at 14:22 , Paul Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>> Thanks for your response to this.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Michael Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just looked at what is in the cvs.
>>>>
>>>> 1. It still has reference to ITC and Trento. I thought this was
>>>> to be
>>>> removed.
>>>
>>> I was waiting for suggestion of a replacement - I think if we just
>>> remove "headquartered at ITC-irst, Trento, Italy." then the
>>> description loses a lot of its meaning. Maybe that isn't
>>> important. Probably I'm just being paranoid about it.
>>>
>>> I have however been thinking a lot and can't think of anything
>>> clearer and simpler than defining the GRASS project as the
>>> community based around the CVS server, mailing lists and website:
>>> take those away and we'd be nothing. I guess the issue is whether
>>> describing them as hosted by Intevation and IRST is the best way
>>> of being specific, or if there's another way. As an alternative to
>>> "headquarted at...", I thought perhaps instead:
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Index: RFC1_PSC.dox
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: /home/grass/grassrepository/grass6/rfc/RFC1_PSC.dox,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.5
>>> diff -u -r1.5 RFC1_PSC.dox
>>> --- RFC1_PSC.dox        12 Mar 2007 11:34:21 -0000      1.5
>>> +++ RFC1_PSC.dox        21 Mar 2007 17:47:27 -0000
>>> @@ -16,8 +16,9 @@
>>>
>>>  "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.
>>> +development, distribution and promotion infrastructure currently
>>> hosted (as
>>> +of March 2007) by the IRST centre, Trento, Italy and Intevation
>>> GmbH,
>>> +Osnabrück, Germany.
>>>
>>>  \section tor Terms of Reference
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> But IMHO that's really cumbersome. In response to what somebody
>>> said earlier about having to change the RFC document if the
>>> location of the CVS server or website/mailing list hosting changed
>>> - I don't see a problem with that. The GRASS community is de facto
>>> defined by our mailing lists, CVS server and website and if these
>>> are changed then that is a significant change and it's not
>>> unreasonable to have to update the RFC in that situation.
>>>
>>> But on the other hand nobody else seems to care that much about
>>> this issue and as Arnulf said, other projects haven't really
>>> addressed it so perhaps I'm being way OTT about it - and if we
>>> don't come to agreement soon on an alternative wording and nobody
>>> else objects then I *am* willing to eventually just delete that
>>> headquarted bit and simplify the whole description.
>>>
>>>> 2. I just noticed that it does not say how the PSC comes into
>>>> being. In our
>>>> case, it was a general vote of the GRASS user community, following a
>>>> nomination period. Does a PSC member serve for a limited or
>>>> unlimited term?
>>>
>>> The section at the end "Composition of the Committee" defines
>>> ("hard-codes", if you will ;) the initial PSC. We used the voting
>>> on the mailing list to determine who is in the initial PSC but
>>> that was in effect just a guidance measure - this document is what
>>> really determines that, as I understand it. And there deliberately
>>> is no minimum/maximum number of PSC members nor term of service -
>>> changes to composition are just handled from now on by voting on
>>> the PSC list.
>>>
>>> A side note on how the PSC assumes "control" over GRASS - it's
>>> related to the first point really - GRASS *is* the codebase in
>>> CVS, mailing lists and website. So as long as the current
>>> maintainers of those (Bernhard and Markus, I suppose) agree to
>>> maintain them in accordance with the wishes of the PSC, that's
>>> enough, I think. Maybe this should be more explicit?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. As Arnulf said, we should be voting on this. Let me make it
>>> a formal proposal then. I propose, that subject to consensus on
>>> the list over the wording of the definition of the GRASS project,
>>> that we adopt the rest of RFC1 and RFC3 as currently in CVS, to be
>>> official guidance documents for the operation of the PSC. And with
>>> the four working days - we have until 7:30pm Central European Time
>>> on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.
>>>
>>> I would like to give it a +1 - in accordance with the voting
>>> guidelines (+1 means willing to support the implementation) I will
>>> do my best to maintain the documents in CVS and try and make what
>>> I meant by the various forms of words clearer if there is any
>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> Now, we only need +2 and no vetos to pass it so please don't feel
>>> obliged to vote a +1 if you're not sure if you have time to
>>> "support the implementation" of the two new RFCs. Of course if you
>>> do think these are really great documents and will make GRASS much
>>> better and are enthusiastic to work with them etc. etc. then by
>>> all means vote +1!! ;) I just feel the voting process becomes a
>>> bit meaningless if everyone rushes to put in their +1.
>>>
>>> Actually I really feel like such a pedant now; hope it doesn't
>>> come across like that :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

[Brad Douglas]

+1 for both as well.  Thanks to everyone for moving this forward.

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 23:47 -0400, Helena Mitasova wrote:
> I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are  
> proposed now in CVS.
>
> To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do so,


--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com>                    KB8UYR/6
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84    National Map Corps #TNMC-3785

[Dylan Beaudette]

On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:26 PM, Brad Douglas wrote:

> +1 for both as well.  Thanks to everyone for moving this forward.
>
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 23:47 -0400, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are
>> proposed now in CVS.
>>
>> To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do
>> so,
>
>

+1 on both from me. Thank you everyone who has worked hard on making
these proposals acceptable to a wide audience.

Dylan


--
Dylan Beaudette
Soils and Biogeochemistry Graduate Group
University of California at Davis
530.754.7341

[HamishB]

To keep with Brad's request that rambling is to be avoided and takes
away from time better spent doing other things, I'll try and keep my
comments brief. I'll add to that with a request to please cut down
others' comments quoted in emails to the relevant bits. It's hard to
keep up with the volume, >>>>> quoted in full gets out of hand.



- Specifiying our HQ is ITC(or modern equivalent) is a good thing. It
shows clear lineage of group from Baylor, OGC, CERL [+OSGeo in future?].
It's a tangible entity. The "law" is probably not in sync with modern
virtual organizations, so having an address to ship a donation check to
(or subpoena ;) is a good thing. Sort of helps pick a legal venue on our
terms as well, if it ever comes to that. As there has not been a (major)
fork in the code, it is clear that GRASS is referring to us. So I think
it a very good idea to specify *-irst as the HQ. It's hard to argue what
a physical location means.

- trademark infringement: assert ^tm as a defensive measure against
someone else doing so then twisting our arm. No cost. (and don't worry
about ^(R) )

- public submission period: cc grass-dev at the time a vote is called?
(keep folks in the loop; informing after the fact is disimpowering for
the greater community; they may bring up something we haven't thought
of)

- thanks Markus for working on the hundreds of copyright headers (made
easier by your [and other's] previous cleaning efforts over the years, I
am sure) FWIW, I understand the practical need for a script to do it,
but if doing it manually I wouldn't have added myself for little bug fix
or _(i18n) CVS commits, only if I added some original work into the
module.


- thanks to Paul, Arnulf, and everyone else for ideas & keeping this
moving.

- concurrent CVS + Wiki editing of RFCs is bad. Do all PSC members have
CVS write access? If not, is that a problem? I much prefer to work with
Doxygen in CVS[1], as I find the history & compare tools easier to use
and the changes more exact and punctuated. But yes, Wiki[2] is easier to
read, and easier to edit - Markus: how often is the grass63progman[3]
HTML updated? At minimum we need to denote which is the primary source,
and which is being kept up to date. Sustained two way sync is unworkable
IMO. Using the wiki for things like the Agenda is fine[4]. But RFCs
should be more formal IMO.

1.  http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass6/rfc/
2.  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/RFC1_Development_Page
3.  http://mpa.itc.it/markus/grass63progman/rfc/
4.  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda

- close votes after 4-7 days. I fear 4 may be too short if busy with
field work or family. 10 days max. Closed earlier if all voters have
reported in, or >50% of voters if a non-unanimous vote was called.
Moving voting to RFC3 is a good move. Let's squish the low hanging fruit
with RFC1 and get it out of the way and then focus solely on the more
nitty gritty problem.
Paul wrote:
> And with the four working days -  we have until 7:30pm Central
> European Time on Tuesday 27th March to discuss and vote on this.

It seems funny to discuss, revise, [,repeat] while voting is open. The
call for votes should signal the end of discussion. (me: sorry for being
AWOL!) Changing the RFC after a vote is called must be banned, wait for
the next RFC to fix it. Otherwise an early +1 vote is for something they
haven't seen!

- Added Canonical's Rosetta translation project back onto the Agenda.
  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC_Agenda

- Add our institutions and/or countries to the PSC wiki page?
(personal interest + adds some level of respectability)
  http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/PSC


- Scott wrote: "Initial PSC membership was decided based on a nomination
and informal voting period on the community's mailing lists. [...] are
declared to be the founding Project Steering Committee."

Perfect.


(we are voting for the CVS versions, yes?)


Hamish

[HamishB]

Hamish wrote:
>
> It seems funny to discuss, revise, [,repeat] while voting is open. The
> call for votes should signal the end of discussion. (me: sorry for
> being AWOL!) Changing the RFC after a vote is called must be banned,
> wait for the next RFC to fix it. Otherwise an early +1 vote is for
> something they haven't seen!


ps - I think RFC1.1, 1.2, 1.3 is fine to do for minor edits. I suggest
current voting be for RFC1(.0) [if I figured my time zones right* that's
rev 1.5 in CVS] and not for any changes since Paul called the vote. We
can fix it in the next round.

Actually, any post-call edits to the RFC in CVS (including minor) is
probably a "-1" veto offense from me (call for a restart), but I'll
think this over before wasting y'alls time & calling for a new vote on
the updated document. (obviously adding URLs etc is harmless, but it is
a very bad precedent and suggests an unfinished document)
[only affects RFC1]


[*] aaah, that's 4 _working_ days. I withdraw objection to the voting
period.


Hamish

[Scott Mitchell-3]

On 22 Mar 2007, at 07:47, Hamish wrote:
>>
>> It seems funny to discuss, revise, [,repeat] while voting is open.  
>> The
>> call for votes should signal the end of discussion. (me: sorry for
>> being AWOL!) Changing the RFC after a vote is called must be banned,
>> wait for the next RFC to fix it. Otherwise an early +1 vote is for
>> something they haven't seen!

Good points.  This is a good example of an issue where although we  
don't want to get bogged down in bureaucracy, if we don't have some  
reasoned policy in place it leads at least to greater confusion, and  
in a worse case scenario risks unintended conflict if someone ever  
felt their input/vote was discarded/discounted.

I had a "funny feeling" AFTER making that one revision to the CVS  
copy (1.6), but I also was (perhaps mistakenly) getting the  
impression that people didn't think it was ready for voting on yet,  
or at least that we were getting a request for wording about the  
origin of the PSC at the same time we were initiating voting.  My  
main error was that in my hurry to contribute before running off to a  
meeting, the fact that the vote had formally been called didn't  
register.  Discussing the change by email first and then committing  
the change to CVS hours later added to the mess.  Sorry for  
contributing to confusion.

> ps - I think RFC1.1, 1.2, 1.3 is fine to do for minor edits. I suggest
> current voting be for RFC1(.0) [if I figured my time zones right*  
> that's
> rev 1.5 in CVS] and not for any changes since Paul called the vote. We
> can fix it in the next round.

> Actually, any post-call edits to the RFC in CVS (including minor) is
> probably a "-1" veto offense from me (call for a restart),  ...
> (obviously adding URLs etc is harmless, but it is
> a very bad precedent and suggests an unfinished document)
>
I THINK you're saying that adding the sentence about the fact that we  
were nominated and elected could count as a minor revision.  It is  
certainly an edit that people have requested and supported.  But to  
confuse the matter, in the same cvs commit I redefined the GRASS  
project, and so now it's not clear to me whether it should say what  
it does now (versions 1.6 on):

""The GRASS Project" is defined as the GPL-licenced GIS software  
known as the
Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, which at the time of  
this writing
has code hosted in a CVS repository at Intevation GmbH, and a web and  
mailing
list presence at http://grass.itc.it."

or what it said in version 1.5:

""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."

Personally, I'm not too concerned either way, I think we achieved  
consensus that we just need to establish which stuff we're talking  
about at the time of the RFC writing, and that we're working towards  
it becoming "OSGeo GRASS" - both of the above alternatives seem to do  
that job, but one has the "headquartered" wording.

And certainly revisions 1.7 to 1.8 are minor, Markus just added  
hyperlinks.  But yes, edits to the text during voting are confusing  
at the very least, and possibly vote-nullifying.

Having said all that... I'm confused as to where we stand now.  Are  
you suggesting that there's a vote still in progress for version 1.5,  
and that we can THEN vote for edits to a new version after that?  I  
can live with that, I was perhaps under the mistaken impression that  
we should get it right once and then not edit it any more... but as  
soon as I say that I can't figure out why it would be so rigid.  So  
now I'm just confused as to (1) what exactly I would vote for, (2) I  
am concerned that there is confusion regarding what other people have  
voted for, which of course is what you're pointing out as something  
to avoid.

By my quick scan of the list traffic, Paul initiated voting at 1822  
GMT 21 Mar, followed by immediate discussion that caused the edits,  
then at 0347 GMT 22 Mar Helena added +1 "for the adaptation of of  
RFC1 and RFC3 as they are proposed now in CVS", and there were three  
more +1s from Michael, Brad, and Dylan, all in response to Helena's  
mail.

I suggest that in this situation we proceed with the "as proposed now  
in CVS" basis (perhaps that should be Paul's call? Markus'?), which  
would put us at version 1.8, and that in future we take more care to  
avoid this confusion, perhaps with something specifically written in  
to the voting policy, either in RFC3 or a followup document.  I  
realize this is NOT what you specifically suggested in your mail,  
Hamish, and I respect your logic and could certainly be happy with  
your interpretation.  At the same time, it seems (??) to go against  
what others have voted for.

Speaking of which, I THINK we have some votes for RFC3 but no call  
for a vote - did I miss it?

Moving on to things that are specifically RFC3 or wider discussion:

One suggestion for at least the future, even if it's too late to  
implement now for RFC1:  if someone calls a vote and that immediately  
initiates something that can be considered a minor edit, then if  
nobody else has voted yet, the caller of the vote could have the  
option of accepting the edits and declaring the new version to be the  
one under consideration.  This seems compatible with the fact that  
the caller is responsible for managing / collating the votes under  
RFC3.  I'm not sure how feasible this is - i.e. how well it scales  
with size of the PSC, dealing with time zones, and delayed emails...  
but is perhaps worth considering/modifying if we want compromise  
between flexibility and formality.

Second, re: CVS or wiki, I have been assuming that all of this  
discussion is about the CVS version, with the wiki stuff lagging  
behind.  This would be my preference, at least for formal documents  
like the RFCs, but I could certainly live with a wiki model if that  
is broadly desired.

Sorry this got so long...

Scott

[Massimiliano Cannata]

+1 for RFC1 and RFC3 as they are on the cvs now.

Massimiliano

Brad Douglas wrote:

> +1 for both as well.  Thanks to everyone for moving this forward.
>
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 23:47 -0400, Helena Mitasova wrote:
>  
>> I am giving my +1 for the adaptation of of RFC1 and RFC3 as they are  
>> proposed now in CVS.
>>
>> To the rest of the PSC members: If you haven't voted yet, please do so,
>>    
>
>
>  

[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

---