Difference between revisions of "RFC1"

From GRASS-Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Quality Control Mechanisms)
m (Replaced content with "{{MovedToTrac|RFC/1_ProjectSteeringCommitteeGuidelines}}")
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''This is a working document with a preliminary proposal, and has not been approved.''
+
{{MovedToTrac|RFC/1_ProjectSteeringCommitteeGuidelines}}
 
 
== RFC 1: Project Steering Committee Guidelines ==
 
: '''Author:''' GRASS Founding PSC
 
: '''Status:''' Proposed
 
 
 
The GRASS Project Steering Committee ([[PSC]]) is proposed to formalize control
 
over the GRASS codebase and to facilitate GRASS project management issues.
 
It is desired to keep the administrative overhead as low as possible.
 
 
 
This document describes how the GRASS Project Steering Committee
 
determines membership and makes decisions on GRASS project issues.
 
 
 
The Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, commonly referred to as GRASS, is a Geographic Information System (GIS) used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modelling, and visualization.  "The GRASS Project" is defined as the collection of community-managed source code, documentation, sample data sets, and related intellectual property which has been submitted under the terms of the project's license(s) (see [[Project:Copyrights]] for details) for shared use.
 
 
 
= Terms of Reference =
 
 
 
The two primary functions of the PSC are:
 
 
 
1) To enforce control over the GRASS codebase. This can be summarised as:
 
: a) Enforce mechanisms to ensure quality control.
 
: b) Ensure compliance with all required legal measures.
 
2) Project Management and responsibility for the "public face" of GRASS.
 
The PSC is expected to be able to speak and act on behalf of the GRASS
 
project.
 
 
 
== Codebase Control ==
 
 
 
=== Quality Control Mechanisms ===
 
 
 
The quality control mechanisms, which are the responsibility of the PSC,
 
currently include:
 
* Maintaining submitter guidelines and making all developers aware of them.
 
* Granting write access to the source code repository for new developers.
 
* Enforcing the submitter guidelines, with the ultimate sanction against
 
non-compliance being removal of write access to the source code repository.
 
 
 
In general, once write access has been granted, developers are allowed to
 
make changes to the codebase as they see fit. For controversial or
 
complicated changes consensus must be obtained on the developers' mailing
 
list as far as reasonably practicable. It is recognised that the ultimate
 
arbitration on technical issues always lies with consensus on the
 
developers' mailing list. Specifically, it is not the role of the PSC to
 
impose technical solutions. Its role is limited to enforcing the quality
 
control mechanisms outlined above.
 
 
 
=== Compliance with Legal Measures ===
 
 
 
Control over the codebase also extends to ensuring that it complies with
 
all relevant legal requirements. This includes copyright and licensing
 
amongst other issues. The PSC is resonsible for developing rules and
 
procedures to cover this. These are outlined in a separate document: "RFC
 
2: Legal aspects of code contributions". This document will be updated and
 
revised by the PSC as required.
 
 
 
== Project Management ==
 
 
 
The PSC will share responsibility and make decisions over issues related
 
to the management of the overall direction of the GRASS project and
 
external visibility, etc. These include, but are not limited to:
 
* Release Cycles
 
* Project infrastructure
 
* Website Maintenance
 
* Promotion and Public Relations
 
* Other issues as they become relevant
 
 
 
It is the responsibility of the PSC to ensure that issues critical to the
 
future of the GRASS project are adequately attended to. This may involve
 
delegation to interested helpers.
 
 
 
= Operation of the PSC =
 
 
 
The PSC has its own public [http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc Mailing List].
 
 
 
A dedicated [http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc Mailing List] exists for the purpose of PSC discussions. When a
 
decision is required of the PSC, it will be presented by any member to the
 
mailing list in the form of a proposal. A decision will then be achieved
 
by discussion of the proposal on the mailing list until a consensus is
 
reached. Voting on issues is also permissable and may be used as a means
 
to reach a consensus or, only in case of extreme cases of disagreement, to
 
force a decision. The [[PSC Agenda]] lists all open motions.
 
Any member may call a vote on any proposal. That member
 
is then responsible for collating votes and presenting the result to the
 
PSC. The voting procedure is outlined in a separate document: XXXXXXX
 
 
 
(Copy all the +1/0- stuff in there). -> Can somebody please do that, potentially a link to the docuemnt is enough.
 
 
 
== Issues that must be voted by the PSC ==
 
 
 
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
 
 
 
== Prevent Consensus Process from Stalement ==
 
 
 
It is recognised that the ultimate arbitration on technical issues 
 
should always lie with consensus on the developers' mailing list. 
 
Specifically, it is not the role of the [[PSC]] to impose technical 
 
solutions. Its role is limited to enforcing the quality control 
 
mechanisms outlined above. In general, once write access has been 
 
granted, developers are allowed to make changes to the codebase as 
 
they see fit. For controversial or complicated changes consensus must 
 
be obtained on the developers' mailing list as far as reasonably 
 
practicable. If consensus fails to emerge naturally, issues can be 
 
referred to the PSC for more structured efforts to build consensus. 
 
As a last resort, if lack of consensus continues, the developer 
 
community can request the PSC to choose options best preserving the 
 
quality of the GRASS project.
 
 
 
== Resolving Deadlock or Break Down ==
 
The Chair is the ultimate adjudicator in case of deadlock or irretrievable
 
break down of decision-making, or in case of disputes over voting.
 
 
 
= Composition of the Committee =
 
''This list could be replace by a link to the [[PSC]] page:''
 
 
 
Michael Barton, Dylan Beaudette, Hamish Bowman, Massimiliano Cannata, Brad
 
Douglas, Paul Kelly, Helena Mitasova, Scott Mitchell, Markus Neteler, and
 
Maciej Sieczka are declared to be the founding Project Steering Committee.
 
 
 
Addition and removal of members from the committee, as well as selection
 
of a Chair is handled as a proposal to the committee as described above.
 
 
 
The Chair is responsible for keeping track of the membership of the [[PSC]].
 

Latest revision as of 08:39, 11 June 2014