Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
Dear PSC, 2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu: I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document. thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could probably move on towards voting? Martin -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2015-01-08 4:02 GMT+01:00 Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu: I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document. thanks a lot! BTW, is there any open issue? If not, we could probably move on towards voting? Yes I think so. Following our new voting rules, after having called for vote Proposals are available for review for at least seven calendar days before a vote can be closed [1] So, please take a last look at [2] so that we can eventually start with the voting procedure. Markus [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures [2] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure (draft) ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me. Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc. Basically who is responsible to recall all to the respect of the mentioned time-frame. Maxi Il giorno Wed Jan 07 2015 at 2:43:33 AM Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com ha scritto: Since I'm in there anyway editing a couple of minor grammatical fixes, I've deleted that sentence based on this latest exchange plus the fact that it makes sense to me. But I'm doing so in the comfort of knowing that my edits can be easily reverted, so don't hesitate if there's reason. On Jan 6, 2015, at 05:35, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote: Hi all, 2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=7old_version=6 I did cosmetics changes [1]. I found that a tbd is still there. I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that? +1 Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch wrote: Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me. I agree. I updated its date now and expanded RC in the beginning. http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Last doubts: * Step1: The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager) then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support for this proposal. -- this sufficient is still a bit elastic. If one developer is against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to democratical debates? Just to be sure. I changed to decide to and decides so it is more clear that it is at the discretion of the Project/Release manager to decide whether there is sufficient support. If Project manager cannot decide by himself (e.g. he/she is not sure), he/she can always call for a vote by PSC. Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc. That's the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic than it is, trac doesn't highlight well this time).: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=16old_version=13 ... makes sense? I made small language edits which did not change the meaning of the document and I agree with the document. Helena Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think? For this RFC? Yes. But I think we are pretty close now. I did cosmetics changes [1]. [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=12old_version=7 Thanks I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that? I *fully* agree. Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Massimiliano Cannata massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch wrote: Dear all, I went trough the document and it make perfectly sense to me. I agree. I updated its date now and expanded RC in the beginning. http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Last doubts: * Step1: The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager) then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support for this proposal. -- this sufficient is still a bit elastic. If one developer is against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to democratical debates? Just to be sure. Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc. That's the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic than it is, trac doesn't highlight well this time).: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=16old_version=13 ... makes sense? Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
Hi, I read the document and support it, On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: Last doubts: * Step1: The Project manager (or if exists the Release manager) then collects reactions to decide whether there is sufficient support for this proposal. -- this sufficient is still a bit elastic. If one developer is against it, others in favour, it is fine to start? Leave it to democratical debates? Just to be sure. To me this makes sense, because it's a good thing that the release manager should have the chance to make a decision on a case by case basis. I'm more in favor of do-ocracy rather than democratical debate ;-) but it's just my opinion Just a minor comment is that we shall probably clearly specify who is responsible for the mentioned actions: call for soft, hard freeze etc. That's the release manager. But I added that now (looks more dramatic than it is, trac doesn't highlight well this time).: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=16old_version=13 ... makes sense? +1 Thank you Margherita -- Best regards, Dr. Margherita DI LEO Scientific / technical project officer European Commission - DG JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) Via Fermi, 2749 I-21027 Ispra (VA) - Italy - TP 261 Tel. +39 0332 78 3600 margherita.di-...@jrc.ec.europa.eu Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstance be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
Hi all, 2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=7old_version=6 I did cosmetics changes [1]. I found that a tbd is still there. I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that? Thanks for feedback in advance, Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=12old_version=7 -- Martin Landa http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On 06/01/15 11:25, Martin Landa wrote: Hi all, 2014-12-30 0:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. I would also agree with that. It would be reasonable also to set some deadline for discussion and then to propose voting. What do you think? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=7old_version=6 I did cosmetics changes [1]. I found that a tbd is still there. I would suggest to simply delete this sentence. Creating extra branch for such purpose seems to be not necessary to me. Any opinion on that? +1 Moritz ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
IMHO lack of answer in a transparent procedure with reasonable response windows just means carry on, everyone agrees. Having a fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or used as an argument for STFU later). Just my 0.02, Māris. 2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: Dear all, as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open discussion related to Release procedure - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure before we start with GRASS RCs... Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to day release management. Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero). The General Procedure in the document is lacking answers to what to do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs. Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months. Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. A statement : if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them. Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Helena On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Maris Nartiss wrote: IMHO lack of answer in a transparent procedure with reasonable response windows just means carry on, everyone agrees. Having a fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or used as an argument for STFU later). Just my 0.02, Māris. 2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: Dear all, as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open discussion related to Release procedure - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure before we start with GRASS RCs... Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to day release management. Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero). The General Procedure in the document is lacking answers to what to do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs. Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months. Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. A statement : if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them. Perhaps that should be added to the text. While doing some other finetuning: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure?action=diffversion=7old_version=6 I found that a tbd is still there. Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure In my view the document is not ready yet (see above). Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
I agree. Even if we cannot get time to look at it, we can at least check in and say that. Michael C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics Complexity Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution Social Change Head, Graduate Faculty in Complex Adaptive Systems Science Arizona State University voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu On Dec 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement. A statement : if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them. Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Helena On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Maris Nartiss wrote: IMHO lack of answer in a transparent procedure with reasonable response windows just means carry on, everyone agrees. Having a fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or used as an argument for STFU later). Just my 0.02, Māris. 2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: Dear all, as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open discussion related to Release procedure - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure before we start with GRASS RCs... Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to day release management. Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero). The General Procedure in the document is lacking answers to what to do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs. Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months. Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: Dear all, as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open discussion related to Release procedure - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure before we start with GRASS RCs... Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to day release management. Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero). The General Procedure in the document is lacking answers to what to do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs. Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months. Markus ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call
On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote: Dear all, as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open discussion related to Release procedure - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure before we start with GRASS RCs... Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer. Moritz ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
