The issue with a PSC is probably not so much the membership, in that first we need consensus that there should/will be a PSC, and then how it will come into being. I do appreciate you bringing this up, Dave, as it has spurred me (and hopefully some others) to go back and re-read past posts on the issue.
From having done so, I agree that there is general consensus from those that have posted on the issue, but that there are also concerns with specifics of the formation and/or decision making procedure. I don't have any issue with the process as it has been discussed, and agree that we need suggestions for alternatives from those that do have issues.
For those that don't know me (I'm relatively quiet on the list): this is all from the perspective of someone who is a long time GRASS user (from version 4.1), that has had to admit to himself in the past couple of years that he is not going to find the time to contribute significantly to code development, despite having had a lot of fun playing with programming as a grad student. I have a large stake in the future of GRASS in terms of academic research and teaching, so am working to increase contribution in the training and outreach areas. I can read the code, but am too rusty to be writing it ! 
But back on topic - the most active programmers are making a great effort to get the new release out, and this is definitely appreciated by the greater community. This decision-making issue has longer term implications, and while it shouldn't be taken lightly nor rashly, I think it's in everyone's interest to get it settled. So I hope we can keep the issue moving forward.
So my purpose here is to declare my support for the formation of a steering committee, and full participation in OSGEO. I too had concerns about the copyright transfer issues early on, but this seems to have been taken care of. I think we should be able to agree on a structure that will maintain the spirit of open, informal collaboration and wide-open potential input, but still have a management structure that is formal enough to be considered viable by OSGEO. I won't go into details since there's extensive discussion in the archives already, and I think that the main issue is probably to rationalize different viewpoints already expressed.
For those that haven't read past discussions already, or want a refresher, see (at least):
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022429.html
and
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2006-April/022501.html
Despite my declaration that it's probably not the "real" issue, I'm quite happy to support all of these nominations for a steering committee...
Michael Barton +1
Hamish Bowman +1
Brad Douglas +1
Paul Kelly +1
Markus Neteler +1
Cedric Shock +1
Venkatesh Raghavan +1
Roger Bivand +1
Paolo Zatelli +1
The number of committee members is another open issue - MAYBE the potential committee is getting big, but I would add a nomination for Helena Mitasova. If this has already happened and you've declined, sorry, I missed that in reviewing the archives. Helena has been involved in the GRASS community for as long as I can remember, is a passionate advocate, and contributes greatly to the consensus-seeking discussions on the development list in our informal current approach. She has research and development partnerships in various labs around the world that have used GRASS in their research and contributed improvements to GRASS capabilities and performance back into the code base for all to share. A perfect example of the open source model !
I know you're trying to reduce the cross posting, but since I'm not currently subscribed to the user's list, this probably won't get through there - so I'm addressing the dev list too.
Cheers,
Scott
----
Scott Mitchell, Assistant Professor, Carleton University
Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, Loeb B443A
& Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Nesbitt 340
Mailing: Loeb B349, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada
+1-613-520-2600 x2695 Fax: +1-613-520-4301 Scott_Mitchell@carleton.ca