[Qgis-developer] Project quality discussion

[Hugo Mercier]

On 06/11/2015 23:08, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> 
> On 7 Nov 2015 12:22 AM, "Hugo Mercier" <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
> <mailto:hugo.mercier at oslandia.com>> wrote:
> 
>> - if a company with no core developer wants to ensure a new feature is
>> accepted, it should pay another core developer for the reviewing part.
>> Ideally the money should go to the project and the project would decide
>> what core developer(s) to pay.
>> The details of this process are not very clear. It still has to be
>> discussed. But the goal is to make clear for everyone that if you want
>> guarantee: you have to pay for it and there is a clear process to handle
>> that.
> 
> In general I like the way this discussion is going. But I disagree
> strongly with this point. It effectively kills off any contributions
> from organisations/individuals who want to contribute via code but can't
> contribute financially (eg universities, etc). We don't want to lose that.

It does not. The idea is to pay if you want a guarantee. It does not
change anything for people who contribute via code without money: they
will wait that someone review / merge their contribution.

> 
> It also means the entire project becomes 100% dependant on financing. At
> the moment a huge chunk (probably the majority) of QGIS work is
> volunteer or via non-funded contributions.

The goal is to improve the sustainability of the project.
What if our free workers get sick, retired or just want to do something
else ?

> 
> Couldn't this just be worked out by sponsored devs/companies on a case
> by case basis? Eg if timing is critical then line up a reviewer for
> speedy review prior to quoting for work and factor into their original
> quote the cost for this.

Exactly and this was part of the discussion. It will probably be done by
direct hiring in a first step if needed.
But ideally something should be done to ensure each contribution is not
tied to a specific need (from the funder) but improve the common good of
the project. This is why a "neutral" point of view from the project
should be needed.