[Qgis-developer] Resurrecting the RFC (QEP - QGIS Enhancement Proposal)

[Even Rouault]

Le vendredi 22 août 2014 17:19:34, Marco Hugentobler a écrit :
> Hi Nathan
> 
> Sounds good to me (no strong opinion wheter to call it RFC or QEP). The
> old RFC template is even online
> (http://hub.qgis.org/projects/quantum-gis/wiki/RFC_Template).
> 
> So open questions:
> 
> - What needs to have an RFC?
>      Proposal Martin: >1000 lines of code /  modification to core/gui /
> UI changes

Another good rule of thumb is "if you ask yourself is a change is worth a RFC, 
then it is worth it"

> 
> - Who can vote?
>      PSC only (GDAL) / committers

With GIT, 'committers' can be anyone. You probably meant folks who have push 
rights in official repo ? If you give them voting rights, and potentially veto 
right (not sure how the rules of the voting system of QGIS are), then they are 
defacto PSC members, since they can steer the direction of the project. Not 
saying this is bad. Just a consequence.

> 
> - How long shall the period from RFC/QEP announcement until finish of
> voting period be? Probably it needs a 'remember, you have to vote' mail
> a few days before end of voting period.

You probably have to distinguish two phases :
- a discussion phase. The length might depend on the reactions of the readers, 
if the RFC needs to be reworked, etc... Difficult to put a max length. Generally 
it is left to the appreciation of the person who writes the RFC to feel when 
enough concensus has been reached so that the voting phase will approve their 
RFC
- the voting phase. In GDAL/MapServer, motions are to be voted theoretically 
within 2 business days. This might be short however.

> 
> Will be cool if Larry can do the first QEP of the 'modern age'.
> 
> Regards,
> Marco
> 
> On 21.08.2014 14:26, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > 
> > I would like to raise something I have been considering for a while
> > now. We are becoming a large project, in code and users, and there has
> > been some recent issues of developers doing work only for there to be
> > disagreements on the implementation. I would like resurrect the use of
> > RFCs, or I think would should name them QEP (QGIS Enhancement Proposal
> > because that sounds much cooler :)
> > 
> > My thinking behind this was:
> > 
> > - QGIS is picking up pace in popularity and use so we need something
> > to formalise the future feature set and any improvements for the next
> > version.  Most people know the Python project uses the idea of PEPs in
> > order to document what new major features are coming in X version and
> > to explain the rational, or reasons .  I have found this handy to be
> > able to look at detailed overview of why a feature made it or didn't,
> > or when it might make it, or if ever.
> > 
> > - This is more then just using the bug tracker to log future features.
> > This is something where we can have more detail and then break it down
> > into sub tasks which can live in the bug tracker but linked to the QEP
> > (RFC).
> > 
> > - The QEP should also have formal voting and discussion around the
> > proposal. This should be limited to a small pool of developers.
> > 
> > - The QEP could also list changes the API, or if breaking changes need
> > to be made.
> > 
> > - Things like how the new feature might fit into other future plans.
> > 
> > - QEPs should list as much detail as possible in order to help
> > everyone see the bigger picture with the feature or change.
> > 
> > Another reason I was thinking about this was in order to consolidate
> > major features and collaborate better. Emails are fine but get lost
> > and forgotten very easily, the bug tracker is the same.  The QEP can
> > link to the emails and tickets for future reference.  QEPs should be
> > the central point for the feature linking to everything that is related.
> > 
> > Tim has been using GitHub for inaSAFE RFCs and it looks good. IMO I
> > would say we should use that.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Nathan
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-developer mailing list
> > Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com