[Qgis-psc] Finalizing the budget

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for diving into this and continuing this discussion.
Providing comprehensive and supportive pull request reviews is a tough but
important task that needs skills on technical, social and application level.

A solid budget to support this ongoing effort helps a lot to maintain a
friendly, responsive and efficient ecosystem.

One part of the discussion is about commercial companies who provide
professional QGIS development services. I think most voices raised so far
tended towards letting companies handle pull request reviews as part of
their internal development process. While I can see where this comes from,
I think this system also has its limitations. Mainly two questions come to
my mind. On the one hand, for one person companies it is not clear to me
how this should work and on the other hand, an external (i.e. independently
financed) reviewer will always be more independent and free to ask for
bigger changes or worst case even reject some changes. It also happens that
people employed by companies still have enough love for QGIS to devote some
volunteer time to contribute, in which case the same-company rule is also
not ideal.

I am also in favor of adjusting the pull request template, as suggested by
Régis. It's always a thin line between being friendly and being too verbose.

Kind regards
Matthias

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:27 AM Régis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC <
qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would go in favor of a fixed budget too, because when things are not
> fixed in advance, I saw in my previous work how customer's projects tend to
> take over long term tasks, even if they are funded.
>
> A fixed budget helps clarifying plannings. That's however not the magical
> solution.
>
> One point that came to my mind, looking at the pull requests : Should we
> treat code review of community work the same way as enterprise funded work?
>
> My point is that review costs should be included in commercial activities
> and not relying on QGIS's community donations to fullfill the QA process.
>
> Community's work however, which is the best way to welcome new long term
> contributors, should not lack behind because all dev's have a lot of
> commercial contracts or need to focus on family / house building  sometimes
>
> I feel this is the current situation, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> That said being able to tell if the pull request is originated by
> volunteers or not, is a gray zone. When it comes to contract within the
> network of our friendly commercial companies, developers know themselves
> enough to be able to tell.
>
> When it is a case like, let's say Amazon's PR, it is easy to tell also.
>
> But what about new contributors investing in the own efforts, still
> working in a big company or local authority ? I am afraid this is a grey
> zone we never will be able to clarify formally and we maybe should use
> nudging more than strict rules there.
>
> What about modifying the current pull request template from
>
> *' Reviewing is a process done by project maintainers, mostly on a
> volunteer basis. We try to keep the overhead as small as possible and
> appreciate if you help us to do so by checking the following list. [..] "*
>
> to
>
> *"** Thanks a lot for submitting this proposal ! **QGIS.org is a non
> profit organization that uses donations a membership fees to fund part of
> the code reviews and bug fixing efforts. A lot of this effort is done on a
> volunteer basis by project maintainenrs.*
>
>
> * If your company is making profits, or saving lots of licence fees using
> QGIS, sponsoring QGIS's project and hiring directly a QGIS core developer
> can help a lot in speeding up the review process. *
>
> *Community members, you're more than welcome to propose code changes,
> we're doing our best to review you're proposal, but we are sometimes a bit
> flooded :) "*
>
>
> Regards
>
> Régis
>
>
>
> On 13/12/2023 09:00, Alessandro Pasotti via QGIS-PSC wrote:
>
> I would really like to hear what other core devs think about this proposal
> though, I only spoke with a few of them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20231218/d5265668/attachment.htm>