/*!
\page rfc1_pmc RFC 1: Project Management Committee Guidelines

Author: Frank Warmerdam<br>
Contact: warmerdam@pobox.com<br>
Status: Proposed<br>

\section summary Summary

This document describes how the GDAL/OGR Project Management Committee
determines membership, and makes decisions on GDAL/OGR project issues.

In brief the committee votes on proposals on gdal-dev.  Proposals are 
available for review for at least two days, and a single veto is sufficient 
to delay progress though ultimately a majority of members can pass a proposal.

\section detailed_process Detailed Process

<ol>

<li> Proposals are written up and submitted on the gdal-dev mailing
list for discussion and voting, by any interested party, not just 
committee members.

<li> Proposals need to be available for review for at least two business
days before a final decision can be made. 

<li> Respondents may vote "+1" to indicate support for the proposal and a 
willingness to support implementation. 

<li> Respondents may vote "-1" to veto a proposal, but must provide clear
reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem within the two
days.

<li> A vote of -0 indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect.  A 0 
indicates no opinion.  A +0 indicate mild support, but has no effect. 

<li> Anyone may comment on proposals on the list, but only members of the
Project Management Committee's votes will be counted. 

<li> A proposal will be accepted if it receives +2 (including the proposer)
and no vetos (-1). 

<li> If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy all parties, 
then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in which a majority of all 
eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient to pass it.  Note that this is 
a majority of all committee members, not just those who actively vote. 

<li> Upon completion of discussion and voting the proposer should announce
whether they are proceeding (proposal accepted) or are withdrawing their 
proposal (vetoed). 

<li> The Chair gets a vote.

<li> The Chair is responsible for keeping track of who is a member of
the Project Management Committee. 

<li> Addition and removal of members from the committee, as well as selection
of a Chair should be handled as a proposal to the committee.  The 
selection of a new Chair also requires approval of the OSGeo board. 

<li> The Chair adjudicates in cases of disputes about voting.

</ol>

\section when_vote When is Vote Required?

<ul>
<li> Anything that could cause backward compatibility issues. 
<li> Adding substantial amounts of new code. 
<li> Changing inter-subsystem APIs, or objects. 
<li> Issues of procedure.
<li> When releases should take place.
<li> Anything that might be controversial. 
</ul>

\section observations Observations

<ul>
<li> The Chair is the ultimate adjudicator if things break down.

<li> The absolute majority rule can be used to override an obstructionist
veto, but it is intended that in normal circumstances vetoers need to be
convinced to withdraw their veto.  We are trying to reach consensus.
</ul>


\section bootstraping Bootstrapping

Frank Warmerdam is declared initial Chair of the Project Management Committee.

Daniel Morissette, Frank Warmerdam, Andrey Kiselev and Howard Butler are 
declared to be the founding Project Management Committee.

*/
 
