On 26/07/16 00:05, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Michael Barton wrote:
My perspective is that active contributors to the project should vote. How to
define them is a
more complicated issue and one of the things that prompted the long email
>This sounds like a good interim step for now. It is something that the new
PSC should continue to work on.
seconded.
-
best regards
Helmut
--
View this message in context:
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Fwd-GRASS-dev-Comment-regarding-PSC-election-tp5278043p5278131.html
Sent from
This sounds like a good interim step for now. It is something that the new PSC
should continue to work on.
Michael
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Head, Graduate Faculty
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Michael Barton wrote:
> My perspective is that active contributors to the project should vote. How to
> define them is a
> more complicated issue and one of the things that prompted the long email
> chain in the PCS IIRC.
Indeed
I add that there is probably no perfect solution to this question. There is no
intent to be exclusive. But tt is not always easy to ID who is actively
contributing. For example, compiling and disseminating GRASS binaries is an
essential contribution to the project, but anyone maintaining
My perspective is that active contributors to the project should vote. How to
define them is a more complicated issue and one of the things that prompted the
long email chain in the PCS IIRC.
Michael
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity