[GRASS-user] RE: PSC: Nominations

GRASS GRASS user
1

Hello Dave,
Sampson, David wrote:

I have forwarded this post to the grass-user list.

Most PSC discussion is occuring on that list to include the widest
variety of idea generators.

Great points you brought us, perhaps the community can address them

Well, looks like there are no good answers yet. But that's understandable - it looks like we have to wait for the steering committee to get going and discuss the issues I suppose.

I think being a full part of OSGeo is probably a good idea, possibly more for political reasons than technical really, which I suppose is a messy area to be getting into---but we're already there e.g. with talking about having to have 6.2.0 released in time for the FOSS4G2006 conference in September so it doesn't matter!

So while even though I'm not at all sure what this nomination process actually means, I would hate to think that anything I could do might hold back or delay GRASS's progress, and so I'll accept the nomination---in anticipation that my slight concerns will be addressed and that the decision-making process that takes place on the developers' mailing list is not going to change that much, *except* for very difficult or stalled issues (which currently tend to end up unresolvable!).

I'm sure I will have issues with the amount of time I'll be able to devote to it (not much) - but 15 minutes a week as was mentioned elsewhere by Frank I think certainly sounds reasonable.

Also, I meant to send this e-mail weeks ago, but kind of forgot/ never got round to it. I don't expect it to make much difference to things but it was a loose end I wanted to tidy up!

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kelly [mailto:paul-grass@stjohnspoint.co.uk] Sent: July 31, 2006 18:09
To: Sampson, David
Cc: grass-dev@grass.itc.it
Subject: Re: [GRASS-user] RE: PSC: Nominations

Hello David
(CC to grass-dev as I feel the discussion is more relevant there; feel
free to move back to user list if you have relevant follow-up comments)

There was a lot of very good discussion about the PSC on the grass-dev
list around the end of April. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to
contribute then as I was very busy with other work. But a lot of very
sensible and meaningful contributions were made to the discussion at
that stage by everyone and they don't need to be repeated.

The stumbling block as I see it is disagreement over the meaning of the
concentric decision-making proposal with PSC at the centre, surrounded
by developers with CVS write access, surrounded by users. This seems to
assume that the PSC are all major contributors with CVS write access,
which (a) doesn't look like it's going to happen and (b) may not even be
the best way anyway; I'm not sure.

What I do think needs serious clarification is the voting or other means
of making decisions on the proposals put forward by the PSC. There are a
few options for this:

Glynn proposed that developers who understand certain areas of the code
better than others should have more authority over changes made it that
area. This sounds good and is very like the way we work at present, but
of course there are always bits that aren't maintained from time to time
and bits that nobody really understands! But I would strongly hope that
the "moral authority" certain developers have over certain bits of the
code will not be undermined by the new decision making mechanism,
whatever it is.

Markus's proposal is the +1, 0-, 0+ etc. voting system on proposals put
forward by the PSC. I think this could be workable, but the following
two points need to be addressed:
* Only decisions that have a relatively clear resultant course of action
should be voted on like this (i.e. not hazy or vague issues were we
aren't totally sure what the decision actually means in practice)
* Who gets a vote needs a lot of clarification. I like Radim's idea that
anybody who has made a subtantial contribution to the code has a voice
here. I think it would be very important to incorporate something like
that to prevent people feeling disenfranchised.

FWIW I am certainly Willing to do the +1 -0 +0 etc. voting thing, and
would try my best to read proposals in the time available. At this time
I'm not willing to commit to a lot more time (although I *may* be able
to; it just depends on circumstances).

So there you go - no yes or no on the PSC nomination from me, and just
more questions really :confused: Sorry... :slight_smile:

Paul

2

Hello Paul,

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:56:27PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:
...

I think being a full part of OSGeo is probably a good idea, possibly
more for political reasons than technical really, which I suppose is a
messy area to be getting into---but we're already there e.g. with
talking about having to have 6.2.0 released in time for the FOSS4G2006
conference in September so it doesn't matter!

Isn't the 6.2.0 release completely unrelated to OSGeo? I/Hamish/others
just think that it would be nice to have a stable release soon since
the code is pretty stable and since we didn't have a stable release
for a long time. So it's a nice occasion to do that for FOSS4G2006.

In general, I would see OSGeo as a good opportunity to promote GRASS
and related projects around the globe. I cannot imagine that e.g.
the OSGeo board steps up to give design suggestions to GRASS or
whatever, this will certainly remain in the GRASS community. And
the requirement to keep the code free of copyright infringements
is already a GPL request.

A PSC is useful to decide about the release cycle - up to now it
was usually proposed and executed by a few individuals with little
discussion. To move that into a group sounds more reasonable to
me.

Markus

3

Hello Markus

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:56:27PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:
...

I think being a full part of OSGeo is probably a good idea, possibly
more for political reasons than technical really, which I suppose is a
messy area to be getting into---but we're already there e.g. with
talking about having to have 6.2.0 released in time for the FOSS4G2006
conference in September so it doesn't matter!

Isn't the 6.2.0 release completely unrelated to OSGeo? I/Hamish/others
just think that it would be nice to have a stable release soon since
the code is pretty stable and since we didn't have a stable release
for a long time. So it's a nice occasion to do that for FOSS4G2006.

Yes that's true - I agree but I was just pointing out that releasing 6.2.0 at this time is therefore partly a political decision rather than just a technical one. I was justifying it to myself really :slight_smile:

In general, I would see OSGeo as a good opportunity to promote GRASS
and related projects around the globe. I cannot imagine that e.g.

Yes that is how I see it too and I think that if GRASS didn't become a full part of it, rather than things standing still in this regard we would move backwards as the rest of the OSgeo projects move further ahead in popularity.

the OSGeo board steps up to give design suggestions to GRASS or
whatever, this will certainly remain in the GRASS community. And
the requirement to keep the code free of copyright infringements
is already a GPL request.

I agree too that this is a non-issue.

A PSC is useful to decide about the release cycle - up to now it
was usually proposed and executed by a few individuals with little
discussion. To move that into a group sounds more reasonable to
me.

Yes! This is a good example of the kind of decision I meant when I said things sometimes end up unsolvable at present. Decisions like this will be greatly helped by having a defined decision-making group like the PSC. And hopefully more complicated technical issues will continue to be solved successfully as they are now.

Paul

4

Paul Kelly wrote:

I think being a full part of OSGeo is probably a good idea, possibly
more for political reasons than technical really, which I suppose is a
messy area to be getting into---but we're already there e.g. with
talking about having to have 6.2.0 released in time for the FOSS4G2006
conference in September so it doesn't matter!

So while even though I'm not at all sure what this nomination process
actually means, I would hate to think that anything I could do might
hold back or delay GRASS's progress, and so I'll accept the
nomination---in anticipation that my slight concerns will be addressed
and that the decision-making process that takes place on the
developers' mailing list is not going to change that much, *except*
for very difficult or stalled issues (which currently tend to end up
unresolvable!).

I'm sure I will have issues with the amount of time I'll be able to
devote to it (not much) - but 15 minutes a week as was mentioned
elsewhere by Frank I think certainly sounds reasonable.

Also, I meant to send this e-mail weeks ago, but kind of forgot/ never
got round to it. I don't expect it to make much difference to things
but it was a loose end I wanted to tidy up!

My feelings and concerns are much the same. I'm not sure where the PSC
will head, but on the assumption/hope that it will be useful I will
accept my nomination, and try and help it to be.

Hamish