Re: Please vote on PSC motion: SVN access for Yann

[Paul Kelly]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Helena Mitasova wrote:

> I am aware that some of you are away, but if you have access to email,
> please vote on the motion to grant SVN commit access to Yann -
> please email your vote to
>
> [hidden email]
>
> thank you very much, it would be great if we don't let this die out
> because of one missing vote,

I can vote +0 if a vote is required, i.e. Yann seems to know what he's
doing and has reported some interesting bugs etc. so I'm confident that
letting him in would be a good idea - on the other hand I'm not planning
on doing anything personally to support the motion, e.g. check up on his
commits, make sure he's comfortable with GRASS SVN commit conventions
etc., so by my (admittedly pedantic) reading of RFC3 that doesn't qualify
me to give a +1.

RFC3 also says we only need two +1 votes and no -1 votes to pass a motion,
so I was working on the assumption that once we had two +1s it didn't
matter if I voted. I'm not really sure what value lots of +1s add to the
discussion - I like to think we are all pretty polite round here and no
one is going to say anything bad about another developer on a public list
(obviously not implying there's anything bad to be said about Yann!) As
I recall the voting process was originally designed by Apache developers -
perhaps they're a much more ruthless/shameless bunch than the GRASS
developers - or maybe they never actually used this voting system for
voting on new SVN committers either.

I suppose it just comes down to re-working RFC3 into something that suits
us better. When I get time, I'll do some research to see what other
projects do about this sort of issue.

Paul
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[hamish-2]

Paul:
> I suppose it just comes down to re-working RFC3 into something that suits
> us better. When I get time, I'll do some research to see what other
> projects do about this sort of issue.


AFAIK RFC3 is purely draft and has no bearing on present votes.

I think RFC3 needs a significant rewrite. I had a start on that but some
months passed with it fermenting in my drafts folder, and then a hard
drive crash took that out and I lost the thought/motivation to redo it.

I would consider the current situation as "seeing what naturally works for
us" and so a good data collection step for a future RFC3 doc. Once we
have it passed it is unlikely that we'll revisit it much.

My observations are that support from a majority of PSC'ers is needed to
pass something, usually the vote is open for about a week. One or more
PSC'ers tend to miss any given vote without ill effect, so 100% consensus
to do anything is not required.

This issue of what it takes to veto or send something back for further
consideration is still unknown. I guess we aren't such a controversially
minded bunch. But you have to start somewhere:

Consider this email me requesting rfc3 be sent back for further
consideration. I'm not happy with it in the current form.


Hamish



     

_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

[Markus Neteler]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Paul Kelly
<[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> RFC3 also says we only need two +1 votes and no -1 votes to pass a motion,
> so I was working on the assumption that once we had two +1s it didn't matter
> if I voted.

It matters as soon as you vote -1.

The trick in the voting business is to set a reasonable deadline. If no -1 was
collected so far, we go ahead.
And, yes, we'll review one day our voting RFC :)

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc