On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > Markus Neteler wrote: >> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Paul Kelly <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure this really needs any changes to RFC 1 either - if desired, >>> it could simply be an informal rule. >> >> I believe that an addition is needed, especially to fix the currently >> broken reference to "above" in the text. > > I don't see any inconsistency there - as I see it "above" refers to the > previous paragraph entitled "Operation of the PSC", where it describes how a > proposal is put to the PSC. Looks OK to me.
Ok - perhaps we add (see "Operation of the PSC") after the words "above" to make it clear? Motion needed for this amendment? >>> If any PSC members aren't willing to >>> continue, then their removal from the PSC can be put forward as a >>> proposal by the chair. >> >> >> I dunno, this sounds much like "the chair kicks the sleepy members out". > > I guess so, but I just feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea that people > could be somehow automatically removed from the committee without any > discussion on the list. Note that addition or removal of members doesn't > appear to require a formal vote, simply to be put forward as proposal for > discussion until consensus is reached. Right - we'll need to do that soon - I'll write another related email about it asap. > All it should need is an e-mail (from anyone who feels comfortable sending > it; it needn't be the chair) saying "I propose that the following members be > removed from the PSC committee with effect from XX June 2012" - and if there > are no objections (no need to call a vote, unless anyone wants to) then > consensus has been reached and the members are removed. ok. > Hamish wrote: >> I would simplify as much as possible, add the reasoning, and leave off >> the the fine-detail procedural stuff: >> >> "In order to keep the PSC fresh, members will annually confirm their >> continued involvement. This should happen by June 1st of each year, >> afterwhich nominations for their replacement may commence at the >> discretion of the chair. They are not replaced, and retain voting rights, >> until such point as their replacement member is formally accepted." > > > I think this sounds very good; I like the idea that nothing happens > automatically without being proposed to the committee and I also like the > idea that there has to be a replacement (otherwise a two-week e-mail outage > could theoretically lead to all PSC members being booted out and there being > nobody left!). Yes, sounds good. Best regards Markus _______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
