[Qgis-developer] Project quality discussion

[Hugo Mercier]

It is already more or less the case since core dev can get paid to
implement whatever a customer wants.

The goal is to:
- be aware that relying too much on free work does not scale
- then find a way to turn some amount of free work into paid work
- and make sure the money does not decrease the common good

On 06/11/2015 23:20, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> I agree with Nyall. It should not turn into a pay to win model. 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com
> <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>> 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 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.
> 
>     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.
> 
>     Nyall
> 
>     >
>     > - writing a QEP before adding a new feature is a good way to increase
>     > its acceptance. But some people have to review it. We may come to the
>     > same process to pay for QEP reviews.
>     >
>     > - at which point we rely on volunteer work is not yet clear. But the
>     > current guess is: still too much. Having a better idea of the ratio
>     > between free work and paid work would be profitable for the
>     project: it
>     > would allow to make clear what the reality of an open source project
>     > like QGIS is and that too much free work is not sustainable. Paolo's
>     > mail is about that. The goal is to (begin to) separate clearly what is
>     > the part of free work and the part of paid work in the project.
>     >
>     > - see on the PSC side if it is possible to pay some people to handle
>     > global maintenance : PR triage, reviews, small bug fixes and so on. It
>     > does not have to be only one developer.
>     >
>     > Thanks for participating in this discussion.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Qgis-developer mailing list
>     > Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>     > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-developer mailing list
>     Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> 
>