-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
DiscussionRfc0
RFC 0: http://www.eoxserver.org/doc/en/rfc/rfc0.html
Thank you for your work on RFCs 0, 7, 8 and the Policies. Just some small remarks:
- Ad submission of proposals: Does this extend to RFCs? I ask because the RFC Policies state anyone who has write access to the SVN (i.e. committers) can submit an RFC, whereas RFC 0 states that any interested person (including non-committers) can submit a proposal.
- Ad anouncements: RFC 0 states that the author of a proposal shall anounce the new status of a proposal that has been voted on. In the original version of the RFC Policies the Chairman (i.e. the PSC Chair) should be responsible for announcing status changes. I think this is more practical since it is the PSC and its Chair who master the voting process.
- Ad voting requirements: In this early stage of EOxServer development, backwards incompatible changes, addition of new features and thus addition of substantial amounts of code and even changes to inter-subsystem APIs will be quite frequent. We should find a way to proceed here without too much formal overhead as long as there are no production installations of EOxServer, e.g. by voting only on a development road map, but not on every single issue that arises during development.
One last question/suggestion: should not we create a web page for recording proposals and decisions (which are not related to RFCs - those are recorded in the respective RFC)?
Thanks for the comments. Here's a short response to the four points:
- Right, proposals can be submitted on the dev mailing list by any interested person but obviously only committers can officially add a RFC to the repository.
- I'd leave it to the author of a RFC to follow-up its voting, adoption, implementation, etc. Naturally I'd think the author has the strongest interest.
- I completely agree and hope that the mailing lists are working soon.
- Please go ahead and create a wiki page for this but anyway there's the archive of the mailing list for documentation.
Given that "There is no fixed number of members for the PSC", then why would we seek nominations for a replacement if a member steps down or becomes inactive for two months? The number of PSC members would then simply decrease, no?
Milan, you're right. I propose to change to: "If a member is not active (e.g. no voting, no IRC, or email participation) for a period of two months then the committee reserves the right to vote to cease membership.".
Stephan, your proposed wording is fine with me.