[Qgis-developer] Project quality discussion

[Nyall Dawson]

On 9 November 2015 at 21:42, Vincent Picavet (ml)
<vincent.ml at oslandia.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 07/11/2015 00:08, 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.
> [..Snip.]
>
>> 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.
>
> As far as I know this statement is totally wrong. The vast majority of
> QGIS work is done via paid people during work hours. This is definitly
> not volunteering, neither non-funded.
> Some work may not be _directly_ funded, but it it still paid work :
> researchers, consultant, people who develop plugins to help their jobs
> may not be paid directly to do specific QGIS improvement. But all the
> work they do on it is part of their global job.
>
> They are indeed students, week-end programmers and other fully
> benevolent volunteers who do a great job in QGIS, but it is IMHO very
> far from being a majority.
> And paying them to work on QGIS also is a way to value their work and
> improve quality, not make the project $$$-dependant.
>

Who would be paying them?

>>> - 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.

The way I read this is that THEY would have to pay for their
contribution to be reviewed.

Nyall