<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Nyall,</p>
<p>I wanted to get back to you regarding your proposed changes to
the grant programme process. The changes make sense for me. </p>
<p>Is 1 week enough for contributor voting & discussion summary
writing? <br>
</p>
<p>Would you start a dedicated QEP for updating the grant programme
process?</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Anita<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2025-02-23 23:13, Nyall Dawson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB28AsjcywcgyHJNP7kkkC32QV9ZnUx5B4pQQ2jH_HJVOvyWAw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Anita, PSC!<br>
<br>
> Our previous rounds of grant proposals have been a great
success. We are<br>
> very pleased to announce that this year’s round of grants
is now<br>
> available. The call is open to anybody who wants to make a
funded<br>
> contribution to QGIS, subject to the call conditions
outlined in the<br>
> application form. The deadline for this round is on Tuesday
2025-03-26.<br>
><br>
> For more details, please read:<br>
> <a
href="http://blog.qgis.org/qgis-grants-10-call-for-grant-proposals-2025"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://blog.qgis.org/qgis-grants-10-call-for-grant-proposals-2025</a><br>
<br>
Thanks for offering this opportunity once again, and for the
hard work you do in making this happen!<br>
<br>
I was wondering if we could make a small change to the process
for submission going forward. Specifically, now that we're
requiring that all QEP proposals go through a formal contributor
voting and acceptance process (instead of the old "no comments
means implicit acceptance" approach), I think the grant process
should also take this into consideration and require that the
associated QEPs have been voted on by contributors and accepted
BEFORE they get put out to the community voting members for
ranking.<br>
<br>
Otherwise we could have the awkward situation where a grant is
submitted which sounds exciting, the QEP generates a bit of back
and forth discussion, the grant wins but then is ultimately
deemed technically unacceptable when the actual work is
submitted for review.<br>
<br>
So my thoughts are that we could tweak the schedule to look like
this: (changed bit in bold/italic)<br>
<br>
- Call for proposals (4 weeks)<br>
- QEP discussion period (2 weeks)<br>
- <i style="font-weight:bold">QEP moves to the</i><b><i>
CONTRIBUTOR </i></b><i style="font-weight:bold">voting
stage. If not approved, then the grant is ineligible and will
be withdrawn. </i>Writing discussion summaries (1 week)<br>
- <b><i>COMMUNITY</i> </b>Voting starts (2 weeks)<br>
- Publication of results<br>
<br>
How does that sound?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nyall</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> We look forward to seeing all your great ideas for
improving QGIS!<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Anita<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> QGIS-Developer mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
> List info: <a
href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br>
> Unsubscribe: <a
href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>