<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Alessandro,</p>
<p>Thank you for jumping in and also for including <a
href="https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/">https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/</a>
in the discussion.</p>
<p>For clarity: currently "no binaries" is listed as a requirement
while "cross platform" is a recommendation.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Regards</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Matthias<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/8/20 6:01 PM, Alessandro Pasotti
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL5Q670vXdkY8MZFZfTHdwnHUWHD1Zjim6hfbRmM++tWEhZ04Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>The no-binary policy in the official repository has been
enforced and listed since day 1 , see <a
href="https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/</a></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I'm not sure if the other rule about
cross-platform has been written down somewhere, I've always
taken that one for granted.<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I see no problems if a plug-in does its
post-installation downloads though.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Just my two cents.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 17:44
Matthias Kuhn <<a href="mailto:matthias@opengis.ch"
moz-do-not-send="true">matthias@opengis.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Paolo<br>
<br>
On 4/8/20 4:55 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:<br>
> Hi Matthias,<br>
><br>
> Il 08/04/20 16:32, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:<br>
>> Hi Paolo,<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for moving forward and writing some
reasoning.<br>
>><br>
>> I would like to change the wording "current
situation" and "status quo<br>
>> committee" in these texts. This suggests that
there has been a conscious<br>
>> decision by a committee like the PSC. I'd rather
describe it as a<br>
>> "currently unclear situation".<br>
> the current situation is not unclear. I think it is
fair to give a<br>
> minimal context, describing how things are running
since many years;<br>
> "current situation" sounds very neutral to me.<br>
> Maybe someone can suggest a more neutral wording?<br>
I still think this was mostly a vision of individuals and
not a general <br>
perception of how it is/should be handled. I was *very*
surprised to <br>
hear that this is the current situation and I think it was
and is <br>
unclear to others too. I also wouldn't be surprised to
find a couple of <br>
binary wheels and plugins which are not cross-platform -
but nobody ever <br>
noticed - in the repository.<br>
> I though about the name to give to the "non-pro"
committee. I avoided<br>
> "against committee", because it sounds ugly to me,
and gives a negative<br>
> impression.<br>
> Perhaps we can skip the problem just replacing "*
committee" with "We"?<br>
> Thanks for the suggestion.<br>
> Cheers.<br>
<br>
I'm fine with dumping the term "pro committee"
formulation. But that's <br>
not the point.<br>
<br>
My main point is that "the status quo" as listed is not as
clear to <br>
everyone as described in the text. Or is it really that
clear to <br>
everyone? I would love to hear some other opinions of
community <br>
representatives and PSC members on this.<br>
<br>
Matthias<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>