Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Dear Hamish, 2014-10-06 4:29 GMT+02:00 Hamish hamish.webm...@gmail.com: sorry for my long absence, I've hardly been on email at all for many weeks now. (and enjoying the break from distractions! :) I certainly in your long mail I cannot simply find the most important information. Your VOTE!... But since people want to get moving, here are my comments on the text of Right, some people like to move ;-) Martin ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
2014-10-06 8:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com: But since people want to get moving, here are my comments on the text of Right, some people like to move ;-) And some people are blocking it, it's probably needed for balance in the universe ;-) Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Dear Hamish, 2014-10-06 8:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com: sorry for my long absence, I've hardly been on email at all for many weeks now. (and enjoying the break from distractions! :) I certainly in your long mail I cannot simply find the most important information. Your VOTE!... please take the sentence above as a kind request. We need to close this motion as confirmed or refused (in case of your veto). Or please tell us that you are not able from _whatever_ reason to vote at all. This is also acceptable. In other words to take a clear decision within the next DAYS. Thanks for your vote or clear statement that you don't vote in advance! Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hamish, you make many good points, but to follow proper procedures, the text cannot be changed after other members of PSC already voted for it. Just to recall the timeline of this RFC3: July 31 call for comments Aug 25 motion called and seconded Sep 20 all votes received except one So if we want to modify the text we need to close this vote (which Markus should do today), then open a new discussion about the voting rules modification and call a new vote so that all PSC members can vote about the new text. Your points are really important and after a discussion they have a potential to improve the voting process so I suggest that we follow the procedure outlined above - finish the vote on the current RFC3 and then you should start a discussion on modifications - the below comments are a good start. I hope this is acceptable to everyone, Helena On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Hamish hamish.webm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, sorry for my long absence, I've hardly been on email at all for many weeks now. (and enjoying the break from distractions! :) I certainly haven't caught up with all the messages in my inbox, there's a good chance I've missed things. But since people want to get moving, here are my comments on the text of RFC3 as it appears on the trac wiki today. (I guess that makes it version 10 according to trac) In general it just codifies what we're already doing, so no big surprises. Devil is in the details, and we are detail oriented people, so let's get this right. :) Proposals (2): make it clear that the Chair is the to to decide that no more progress is being made, and close the vote in that case. The last sentence of (2) seems to indicate that, but the wording is a bit muddy. Voting (3): Strike the invalid veto text. I will not support passing RFC3 with that in place. Who is to judge that the reasons given are clear? What if we know something is definitely not the right solution but don't know the correct answer? In yacht racing we used to have a saying: even if you do not know what the right thing to do is, especially then, never knowingly do the wrong thing. If nothing else it is IMHO quite disrespectful to our fellow PSCers. Voting (4): ... but has no effect -- other than to formally indicate the voter's position. (which should hold community weight even if it doesn't count in the calculus of the vote, so should be given a nod in the text) [new] Voting (9): The Chair is responsible for validating the final result. (or some text like that, we don't seem to explicitly say it elsewhere) some other points to consider: - lesser threshold for granting commit rights? (100% PSC members answering not req'd, just a quorum of 51% and no vetos. moreover maybe a shorter timeout of 3-4 days for these. Voting (8) mentions active voters but AFAICT elsewhere we don't formally discuss absentees vs. abstainers) - passing rfc by simple majority, or require a higher threshold? - overriding a veto by simple majority, or require a higher threshold? in both the above cases it seems to me the healthiness of the overall project would benefit by forcing us to work very very hard to come to a real consensus rather than expedite a quick decision. FOSS runs on good interpersonal relationships; any chance of unresolved bad feelings being left in the wake of a decision can be quite toxic to the long term heath of the project and avoided at all costs. As I catch up on my email I'll reply to the RFC3 threads on the PSC list inline, probably there are many fine points made by others already that I missed. :) regards, Hamish ps- I still strongly believe that a wiki is not the place to house approved RFCs, it should be in a more formal and secure VCS, such as Subversion. It is not necessary to keep it in the source code tarball, but that does have the benefit of widely disseminating copies. For historical changelog + diff interest, developing the RFC text in the final VCS would be preferable. (culturally, commit log messages tend to be much better in SVN than in a wiki, and the why of a change is quite important in this context. also the wiki is open to anyone on the internet who cares to create an account. will our RFCs get spammed or vandalized? even if approved motions are converted to locked pages, that doesn't work for working documents. these aren't some simple help page.) ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc -- Helena Mitasova Associate Professor Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State University 1125 Jordan Hall NCSU Box 8208 Raleigh, NC 27695-8208 http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hmitaso/ http://geospatial.ncsu.edu/ email: hmit...@ncsu.edu ph: 919-513-1327 (no voicemail) fax 919 515-7802 ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi, 2014-10-06 4:29 GMT+02:00 Hamish hamish.webm...@gmail.com: ps- I still strongly believe that a wiki is not the place to house approved RFCs, it should be in a more formal and secure VCS, such as Subversion. It is not necessary to keep it in the source code tarball, at least other OSGeo projects as eg. GDAL [1] have no problem to have RFC on Trac. In this light I don't agree with moving RFCs back to SVN. Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/RfcList -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi all, sorry for my long absence, I've hardly been on email at all for many weeks now. (and enjoying the break from distractions! :) I certainly haven't caught up with all the messages in my inbox, there's a good chance I've missed things. But since people want to get moving, here are my comments on the text of RFC3 as it appears on the trac wiki today. (I guess that makes it version 10 according to trac) In general it just codifies what we're already doing, so no big surprises. Devil is in the details, and we are detail oriented people, so let's get this right. :) Proposals (2): make it clear that the Chair is the to to decide that no more progress is being made, and close the vote in that case. The last sentence of (2) seems to indicate that, but the wording is a bit muddy. Voting (3): Strike the invalid veto text. I will not support passing RFC3 with that in place. Who is to judge that the reasons given are clear? What if we know something is definitely not the right solution but don't know the correct answer? In yacht racing we used to have a saying: even if you do not know what the right thing to do is, especially then, never knowingly do the wrong thing. If nothing else it is IMHO quite disrespectful to our fellow PSCers. Voting (4): ... but has no effect -- other than to formally indicate the voter's position. (which should hold community weight even if it doesn't count in the calculus of the vote, so should be given a nod in the text) [new] Voting (9): The Chair is responsible for validating the final result. (or some text like that, we don't seem to explicitly say it elsewhere) some other points to consider: - lesser threshold for granting commit rights? (100% PSC members answering not req'd, just a quorum of 51% and no vetos. moreover maybe a shorter timeout of 3-4 days for these. Voting (8) mentions active voters but AFAICT elsewhere we don't formally discuss absentees vs. abstainers) - passing rfc by simple majority, or require a higher threshold? - overriding a veto by simple majority, or require a higher threshold? in both the above cases it seems to me the healthiness of the overall project would benefit by forcing us to work very very hard to come to a real consensus rather than expedite a quick decision. FOSS runs on good interpersonal relationships; any chance of unresolved bad feelings being left in the wake of a decision can be quite toxic to the long term heath of the project and avoided at all costs. As I catch up on my email I'll reply to the RFC3 threads on the PSC list inline, probably there are many fine points made by others already that I missed. :) regards, Hamish ps- I still strongly believe that a wiki is not the place to house approved RFCs, it should be in a more formal and secure VCS, such as Subversion. It is not necessary to keep it in the source code tarball, but that does have the benefit of widely disseminating copies. For historical changelog + diff interest, developing the RFC text in the final VCS would be preferable. (culturally, commit log messages tend to be much better in SVN than in a wiki, and the why of a change is quite important in this context. also the wiki is open to anyone on the internet who cares to create an account. will our RFCs get spammed or vandalized? even if approved motions are converted to locked pages, that doesn't work for working documents. these aren't some simple help page.) ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
I would consider this sufficient seconds to the idea of putting the text to vote ;-). On 24/08/14 23:18, Michael Barton wrote: Me too 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 Aug 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 19:09 , Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? I am fine with the current text, Helena Same here. Scott ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Aug 23, 2014, at 19:09 , Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? I am fine with the current text, Helena Same here. Scott ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Me too 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 Aug 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Scott Mitchell smi...@me.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 19:09 , Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? I am fine with the current text, Helena Same here. Scott ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? So far not all http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC#Members expressed their view. This may be fine but since it is the vote about voting procedures, we need to be sure that we got the RFC3 proposal right. I am fine to call for a vote in the next days. Best Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi, I went through the RFC3 proposal and I think is clear and OK. I'm for calling a vote for approval. Maxi 2014-08-23 16:01 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? So far not all http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC#Members expressed their view. This may be fine but since it is the vote about voting procedures, we need to be sure that we got the RFC3 proposal right. I am fine to call for a vote in the next days. Best Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc -- *Massimiliano Cannata* Professore SUPSI in ingegneria Geomatica Responsabile settore Geomatica Istituto scienze della Terra Dipartimento ambiente costruzione e design Scuola universitaria professionale della Svizzera italiana Campus Trevano, CH - 6952 Canobbio Tel. +41 (0)58 666 62 14 Fax +41 (0)58 666 62 09 massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch *www.supsi.ch/ist http://www.supsi.ch/ist* ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Dear PSC, 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: [...] If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. thanks Markus for modifications. It's not clear to me if we can start voting procedure or not (any feedback from Helena and others?), what do you think? I am fine with the current text, Helena So far not all http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC#Members expressed their view. This may be fine but since it is the vote about voting procedures, we need to be sure that we got the RFC3 proposal right. I am fine to call for a vote in the next days. Best Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi all, 2014-08-01 2:22 GMT+02:00 Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu: +1 I suggest to start voting. If no objections, Markus, could you please start '[MOTION]' thread? Martin -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: although I am wondering whether there should be some clarification that in 5. it is 51% of the members voting on this particular proposal (meaning that a vote from all PSC members is not needed to pass a proposal) 5. A proposal will be accepted if it receives majority (51% including the proposer) of votes (+1) and no vetoes (-1). while in 8. we are talking about all members of PSC which is clearly stated there. 8.If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in which a majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient to pass it. Note that this is a majority of all committee members, not just those who actively vote. If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Well, better be clear in the first place. To avoid future discussions I have done some finetuning in the wording. For the changes, see http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=10old_version=9 Hope it is more clear now. Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Margherita Di Leo direg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, shouldn't we be voting upon this new rules proposal at a certain stage? right! PSC [1]: are you all happy with this version? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures Markus [1] Members: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi, 2014-07-31 14:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org: shouldn't we be voting upon this new rules proposal at a certain stage? right! PSC [1]: are you all happy with this version? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures yes, I just made small cosmetic change [1]. Martin [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures?action=diffversion=9 -- Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
+1 although I am wondering whether there should be some clarification that in 5. it is 51% of the members voting on this particular proposal (meaning that a vote from all PSC members is not needed to pass a proposal) 5. A proposal will be accepted if it receives majority (51% including the proposer) of votes (+1) and no vetoes (-1). while in 8. we are talking about all members of PSC which is clearly stated there. 8.If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in which a majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient to pass it. Note that this is a majority of all committee members, not just those who actively vote. If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well and no modification is needed. Helena Helena Mitasova Associate Professor Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences 2800 Faucette Drive, Rm. 1125 Jordan Hall North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8208 hmit...@ncsu.edu All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:44 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Margherita Di Leo direg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, shouldn't we be voting upon this new rules proposal at a certain stage? right! PSC [1]: are you all happy with this version? http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures Markus [1] Members: http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/PSC ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Landa landa.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, 2014-04-07 3:24 GMT+02:00 Yann Chemin yche...@gmail.com: I second Helena on quorum (min 51%), and also +1 for the 7 days suggestion of MaDi. I would agree with that. Martin /me too. Perhaps we should draft an updated version in the Wiki? Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
[GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html Issues: - people are travelling and periodically offline - not all members may need to vote (majority, quorum, etc) - keep it simple - ... Best, Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Hi, On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html I fully support this proposal. My only concern raises about business day definition. PSC members are from all over the world and it might happen to be public holidays in some countries and working days in some else. I'd propose to change this sentence: Proposals are available for review for at least four business days into: Proposals are available for review for at least seven days Would this be OK? Thanks, Madi -- 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-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
Madi’s suggestion makes sense to me. I suppose that the wording of #2 could be modified to allow for the case where all members have already voted with no dissenting comments, if we think a rush situation might come up. I.e. instead of just increasing 4 days to 7 days, it could be worded as a default 7 days if comments are still being exchanged and votes coming in, but less time if everyone has voted without issue. On Apr 6, 2014, at 07:48 , Margherita Di Leo direg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html I fully support this proposal. My only concern raises about business day definition. PSC members are from all over the world and it might happen to be public holidays in some countries and working days in some else. I'd propose to change this sentence: Proposals are available for review for at least four business days into: Proposals are available for review for at least seven days Would this be OK? Thanks, Madi -- 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-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On 06/04/14 12:48, Markus Neteler wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html Thank you for this revised version ! I agree with Madi on the way the delay is expressed. I have two major remarks, though: - We should define more clearly what should be subject to voting. At this stage we only have this in the PSC guidelines: The following issue(s) must have a vote called before a decision is reached: Granting source code repository write access for new developers Selection of a committee Chair Maybe we need to amend this a bit in the light of the current votes being put onto this list ? - Proposals are written up and submitted on the mailing list for discussion. Any committee member may call a vote on any proposal, although it is normal practice for the proposer to call the vote. I would propose that in order to avoid vote inflation, any proposal should be submitted by at least three members of the PSC, not just one. This should ensure a bit of discussion and peer review before submission, thus avoiding long debates on proposals that just are not ripe for vote, yet. Moritz ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 06/04/14 12:48, Markus Neteler wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html Thank you for this revised version ! just FYI: it is not revised but as before (several years, I guess). Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
In my opinion things worked quite fine in the last years. - Madi proposal is also fine: 7 days may give more chance for everybody to be connected for voting. - Probably having majority only after that period would suffice for motion to pass. - Vote is mandatory for write access to SVN, otherwise take place only if called (important issues only in my opinion or when discussion in mailing list do not bring to a commonly accepted solution). This is just my point of view. :-) Maxi Il 6-apr-2014 19:24 Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org ha scritto: On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Moritz Lennert mlenn...@club.worldonline.be wrote: On 06/04/14 12:48, Markus Neteler wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html Thank you for this revised version ! just FYI: it is not revised but as before (several years, I guess). Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
Re: [GRASS-PSC] RFC3: New voting rules
I second Helena on quorum (min 51%), and also +1 for the 7 days suggestion of MaDi. On 7 April 2014 06:19, Helena Mitasova hmit...@ncsu.edu wrote: I agree with the voting rules with the following changes/comments: - change 4 business days to seven days to avoid confusion given that business days may be different in different countries due to holidays (as already suggested) - I am confused about #6 - does this mean that it is enough for 2 PSC members (out of 10?) to agree to accept a proposal? Should we have at least a simple majority? Does this voting procedure apply to svn access as well? Helena Helena Mitasova Associate Professor Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences 2800 Faucette Drive, Rm. 1125 Jordan Hall North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8208 hmit...@ncsu.edu All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.” On Apr 6, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Markus Neteler wrote: PSC; since the voting discussion is scattered around in various email threads, I start a new one to separate it from ongoing motions. Please re-express your comments as answer to this email. RFC3: PSC Voting Procedures http://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/rfc3_psc.html Issues: - people are travelling and periodically offline - not all members may need to vote (majority, quorum, etc) - keep it simple - ... Best, Markus ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc -- ___ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
