<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'"><div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi PSC and all,<br><br></div>Thanks Tim for the counting. And congratulations to "winners".<br><br>Thanks Andreas to remind us that Documentation has a (unfortunately unused) budget. Is it still 5 k€? It could be nice if we find opportunities to spend it. So, here are some ideas:</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br>1/ I recall that during the first round of Grant applications there was a couple of proposals regarding PyQGIS Cookbook update. Once QGIS 3 API is stable, we could potentially fund one of them, if the applicants are still interested.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br>2/ Also, i have in mind some improvements that would benefit to the documentation, that I've reported here, and there or have discussed briefly with some doc teammates:</div><div dir="ltr">- update training manual</div><div dir="ltr">- a good and efficient search tool in the manuals: the results of the search box at the top of documentation pages do not seem pertinent; it might be a matter of configuration or sphinx version (which Richard should upgrade in Essen, if all goes fine). Still, that's currently a weakness of our doc infrastructure imho.</div><div dir="ltr">- a clean and readable pdf manual: I still believe that in low connection environment, this could be of interest and use for people.</div><div dir="ltr"><br>3/ <span style="font-family:sans-serif">add to qgis website statistics of translated website/doc/desktop as done by the Portuguese user group at <a href="http://www.qgis.pt/traducao.html" target="_blank">http://www.qgis.pt/traducao.<wbr>html</a> These information are currently "hidden" behind Transifex login. I think that showing every body the level of QGIS translation into their language could lead to some sane competition between communities and translators work will be more visible and advertised (and hopefully, attract new translators?)</span></div><div dir="ltr"><br>4/ a new design of qgis website and documentation: I was expecting a grant application for the desktop design (or did I misunderstand some discussions in ML?) but I wonder if QGIS3 and the new logo are not the opportunity to give new colorful identity to our websites<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>... other ideas/needs???<br><br></div><div>That said, beyond finances, it requires someone to be aware and interested in fixing these issues. Should we make a call? Or.... a QGIS Documentation Grant application :) ? <br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>Harrissou<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="ltr">2017-04-21 11:21 GMT+02:00 Nathan Woodrow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:madmanwoo@gmail.com" target="_blank">madmanwoo@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey,<div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I think that in the end that is just what can happen. We are doing this open for a reason. Having said I would be keen to see if we can fund the OS X packages for Larry anyway even if we need to pull some more money. Given it's an <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px">infrastructure issue and would help the uptake on OS X even more, which may lead to more funds, I think it's ok to use money for that outside of grants, but I'm not also on the PSC ;)</span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px"><br></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana,geneva,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px">Regards,<br>Nathan</span></div></div><div class="m_5458061685804253876HOEnZb" dir="ltr"><div class="m_5458061685804253876h5" dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="ltr">On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Neumann, Andreas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.neumann@carto.net" target="_blank">a.neumann@carto.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif" dir="ltr">
<p>Hi Nyall,</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tHWM0aILCXyGvMj8YsIxo4ynmJH_wA2VDYVrEs_QLtI/edit#gid=1593575986" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/spr<wbr>eadsheets/d/1tHWM0aILCXyGvMj8Y<wbr>sIxo4ynmJH_wA2VDYVrEs_QLtI/edi<wbr>t#gid=1593575986</a> if we take out the "Processing Algorithm Documentation", the "Update MacOS CMake Bundling Scripts" still wouldn't make it.</p>
<p>However, the PSC could decide to still fund these additional 1.8k €. I would be a +1 on that and think we can afford it. The multi-platform nature of QGIS is a big plus when comparing it with other platforms and we should continue to invest into our multiple platforms - esp. when it comes to such infrastructure work.</p>
<p>Personally, I am really surprised and a bit disappointed that "QGIS 3D" was so popular and I was hoping that "<span>Update MacOS CMake Bundling Scripts</span>" would make it in the top proposals. I was thinking that it would be easy to find funds for cool 3D stuff or other cool new features, but not so easy to find funders for infrastructure work or important and less visible under-the-hood improvements. Seems like not all voting members think along these lines that primarily important boring, under-the-hood and infrastructure stuff should be sponsored, and that the "cool" stuff should be funded through other sources. Not that I am against 3D, and certainly not against Martins proposal - I hope that this is clear.</p><span class="m_5458061685804253876m_6301420797662317447HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>Andreas</p></font></span><div dir="ltr"><div class="m_5458061685804253876m_6301420797662317447h5" dir="ltr">
<p>On 2017-04-21 00:28, Nyall Dawson wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding:0 0.4em;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;margin:0">
<div class="m_5458061685804253876m_6301420797662317447m_4283220486058014558pre" style="margin:0;padding:0;font-family:monospace" dir="ltr">On 21 April 2017 at 07:47, Tim Sutton <<a href="mailto:tim@qgis.org" target="_blank">tim@qgis.org</a>> wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding:0 0.4em;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;margin:0"><br> Hi Larry<br><br><br> On 20 Apr 2017, at 7:24 PM, Larry Shaffer <<a href="mailto:larrys@dakotacarto.com" target="_blank">larrys@dakotacarto.com</a>> wrote:<br><br> Hi Tim and PSC,<br><br> Is the a reason normal cumulative weighting of the votes was not used instead of the per-level exclusionary approach?<br><br> Attached are the tally results when done in a cumulative manner, which I think is a fairer representation of one's vote and reflection upon each project's overall importance, when compared to the current method. Note the very different results, though the top projects are still fairly similar.<br><br><br> Thanks that makes much better sense - I have updated the spreadsheet summary tab accordingly. As you say the outcome for the top 5 items is the same (though their sequence changes) - I will follow your approach for future grant votes.<br><br></blockquote>
<br> Fantastic work Tim + PSC, this is all very exciting to see!<br><br> Inevitable question - if the processing documentation work gets funded<br> through the documentation budget, does that mean the (much needed) OSX<br> packaging work would squeeze in?<br><br> Nyall<br> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br> Qgis-psc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/qgis-psc</a></div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div><br></div>