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 t
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, 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
>
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
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/progra
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Moritz Lennert
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
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 t
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 P
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 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
Hi,
2014-04-07 3:24 GMT+02:00 Yann Chemin :
> I second Helena on quorum (min 51%), and also +1 for the 7 days suggestion
> of MaDi.
I would agree with that. Martin
___
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listi
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Martin Landa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-04-07 3:24 GMT+02:00 Yann Chemin :
>> 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?
Ma
Hi,
2014-04-09 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
>>> 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?
I updated RFC3 [1] accordingly, so
* 4 -> 7 day
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-04-09 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
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 vers
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Martin Landa
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2014-04-09 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
> I second Helena on quorum (min 51%), and also +1 for the 7 days
> suggestion
> of MaDi.
> >>>
> >>> I woul
+1
Scott Mitchell
On Jun 21, 2014, at 09:23 , Margherita Di Leo wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2014-04-09 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
> I second Helena on quorum (min
Hi,
2014-06-21 15:23 GMT+02:00 Margherita Di Leo :
> I just updated the 4 business days -> 7 days also in the "introduction"
> paragraph.
> I express my +1 for the approval of the current version.
Please note that we need officially start voting process. Martin
--
Martin Landa * http://geo.fsv.
Hi PSC,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
...
>> [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/3_PSCVotingProcedures
>
> Thanks.
>
> I wonder about this phrase:
>
> "The PSC Chair gets a vote."
>
> Did a word get lost?
> If n
Markus,
I think you are right "committee members including the PSC Chair get a
vote" should work.
Maxi
2014-06-23 18:21 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
> Hi PSC,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Martin Landa
> wrote:
> ...
> >> [1] htt
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Massimiliano Cannata
wrote:
> Markus,
> I think you are right "committee members including the PSC Chair get a vote"
> should work.
Fine. I have added that.
Additionally I have split the text in a "Proposal" and "Voting"
section for readability.
Finally, I have a
Hi,
shouldn't we be voting upon this new rules proposal at a certain stage?
Thanks,
madi
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Massimiliano Cannata
> wrote:
> > Markus,
> > I think you are right "committee members including the PSC Chair ge
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Margherita Di Leo 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
Hi,
2014-07-31 14:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
>> 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
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
pr
Hi all,
2014-08-01 2:22 GMT+02:00 Helena Mitasova :
> +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@l
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Helena Mitasova 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
Dear PSC,
2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
[...]
>> 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 t
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
> Dear PSC,
>
> 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
>
> [...]
>
>>> 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 fut
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 :
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa
> wrote:
> > Dear PSC,
> >
> > 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
> >
> > [...]
> >
>
On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
>> Dear PSC,
>>
>> 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
>>
>> [...]
>>
If I understood this correctly then I assume other understand it as well
and no modification is n
On Aug 23, 2014, at 19:09 , Helena Mitasova wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Martin Landa wrote:
>>> Dear PSC,
>>>
>>> 2014-08-17 21:37 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler :
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
> If I understood this correctly then I a
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), 480-965-8130/727-9
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
H
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 comment
Dear Hamish,
2014-10-06 4:29 GMT+02:00 Hamish :
> 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 w
2014-10-06 8:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa :
>> 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
Dear Hamish,
2014-10-06 8:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa :
>> 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
Dear PSC and Hamish,
2014-10-06 8:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Landa :
>>> 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!
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
Hi,
2014-10-06 4:29 GMT+02:00 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,
at least other OSGeo projects as eg. GDAL [1]
38 matches
Mail list logo
