<div dir="ltr">Hi Régis,<div>indeed a very good point. I totally agree with you on the idea, I just think the formulation could be improved a bit and made a bit "harder"</div><div>maybe:<br><p><i>Thank you for submitting this proposal. QGIS.org is a non-profit organization that relies on donations and membership fees to fund part of the code reviews and bug fixing efforts. Much of this work is done voluntarily by project maintainers.</i></p><p><i>If your company reaps financial benefits or substantial savings on license fees through the use of QGIS, we strongly recommend considering <a href="https://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/sustaining_members/sustaining_members.html">supporting of the QGIS project</a>. Additionally, directly hiring a QGIS core developer greatly accelerates the review process.<br></i></p><p><i>Community members, we warmly welcome your proposed code changes. We commit to reviewing your proposals diligently, although at times we may face an overwhelming volume of submissions.</i><br><br>what do you think?</p><p>Cheers Marco</p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:27, Régis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC <<a href="mailto:qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org">qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Hi all, <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>A fixed budget helps clarifying plannings. That's however not the
magical solution. <br>
</p>
<p>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? <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 </p>
<p>I feel this is the current situation, correct me if I'm wrong. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>When it is a case like, let's say Amazon's PR, it is easy to tell
also.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>What about modifying the current pull request template from <i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i>' 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. [..] "</i><br>
</p>
<p>to <br>
</p>
<p><i>"</i><i> Thanks a lot for submitting this proposal ! </i><i>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.</i></p>
<p><i> 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. <br>
</i></p>
<p><i>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 :) "</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>Régis<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 13/12/2023 09:00, Alessandro Pasotti
via QGIS-PSC wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">I
would really like to hear what other core devs think about this
proposal though, I only spoke with a few of them.</blockquote>
<div id="m_8088732316823636341grammalecte_menu_main_button_shadow_host" style="width:0px;height:0px"></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Marco Bernasocchi<div><div><br></div><div>QGIS.org Chair<br>OPENGIS.ch CEO</div></div><div><a href="http://berna.io" target="_blank">http://berna.io</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>