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

Mon Aug 25 02:56:07 PDT 2014

Hey,

I am still of the opinion that the PSC doesn't need to be involved in the
vote unless there is a split.  Most QEPs will be at a technical level and
might take a bit to parse, others might not be.

It might be best to have categories or QEPs so that different groups have
different votes. A QEP for say changing the bug tracking system could be
voted by the PSC for example (example only).

A QEP should come after some discussion on the mailing list. Consider it a
formal proposal rather then a 'what do you think of this idea'. If you are
funding a project then mailing list discussion is highly recommend because
creating a QEP even if you have money and a developer is no guarantee that
it will be accepted.

The whole point of a QEP is to see the full idea of a proposal in one place
and to make sure it will fit with the best interests of the project. Having
10 ways to do X is not and doesn't help our users.

Having QEPs might slow development in the sense that you can no longer just
fund something and have it go in without objection or discussion.

Nathan
On Aug 25, 2014 7:42 PM, "Vincent Picavet" <vincent.ml at oslandia.com> wrote:

> Hell,
>
> > You speak of discussion with community.
> > This is agreement, but the only important to be sure of the work is the
> > PSC agreement.
> > If after 2 weeks the PSC say nothing one could start with a contract
> > for the development ?
>
> As Marco said, and as it always has been the case in the QGIS project, the
> PSC
> vote should only be a confirmation of the community advice.
> If the PSC vote is contrary to the general community agreement, then we
> have a
> problem with the PSC itself. It never has been the case AFAIK.
> If the community do not generally agree, then there is a problem with the
> QEP,
> and it has to be either refined, or changed.
>
> > Surely better could be have a +1 explicit from the PSC menbers on the
> > docs before start the work.
> The PSC is there to validate the community advice, based on the expertise
> of
> the latter. If you want to have a sense of agreement before writing a RFC,
> then ask the community.
>
> > And how PSC vot need to say that the RFC is accepted ?
> I think the QEP should be officially proposed to the PSC by the original
> author,
> and the PSC will have a certain amount of time (say 1 week ?) to vote.
> This vote should reflect the community advice.
> A lack of vote in the given time should lead to QEP validation.
>
> > Please note also that a community discussion could bring far from the
> > objective of the RFC.
> > And forgot that only the PSC vote are relevant to say the RFC is
> > accepted or not.
> >
> > Another question is:
> >
> > actually 4/7 of PSC are not technical.
> > This mean that a RFC could be approved without that any one of
> > technical comptents are say :
> > "ok it is compatible with actual QGIS, it don't break anything".
> > Or evalute if what is potentially breakable is reasonable or not.
>
> Once again, the PSC vote should only be a validation of the general
> community
> advice. The required technical competences are in the community at large,
> and
> the PSC knows to trust the community.
>
> > My dubt is infact.  A compatibility break is a technical question ?
> > I guess potentially no, because it is more on QGIS usability , but is
> > technical when start to say:
> >
> > hey using this solution you break the past, instead if you use this
> > other solution you don't break the past.
> >
> > Is not simply to evaluate this question, and without a QGIS developer
> > expert is not easy to follow a RFC for a funder.
>
> Then the funder hires a QGIS developer to follow the RFC and make report.
> That's my scenario 3.
>
> Hope this clarify your questions. Others, do not hesitate to fix my
> understanding of the process if I am mistaken.
>
> Vincent
>
> >
> > A.
> >
> > 2014-08-25 10:54 GMT+02:00 Vincent Picavet <vincent.ml at oslandia.com>:
> > > Hi Andrea,
> > >
> > > First of all, I tend to agree with Marco, where QEP should be voted
> when
> > > there is a general agreement on them. The PSC voting should therefore
> be
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > As for you question about QEP vs funders.
> > >
> > > Le lundi 25 août 2014 08:41:29, aperi2007 a écrit :
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >> Also, AOAIK an important question is undrstand the limit of a RFC.
> > >> Infact don't forget that the main enhancement are always covered by
> one
> > >> or more funders.
> > >>
> > >> Tipically they ask an enhancement with some request themself.
> > >>
> > >> This RFC in the QGIS world is obviously after the real fund phase
> where
> > >> the funders find the developer and contract him.
> > >> So what mean that the RFC is submittable to the PSC ?
> > >> If the PSC to accept the RFC required more changeables and these
> > >> changeable require more fund, what happened ?
> > >>
> > >> Or this RFC could be submitted before to find the developer and fund
> him
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> In this second situation, the RFC should be submited from the funders
> ?
> > >
> > > What should happen is one of the three following scenarii :
> > >
> > > * The funder works with a contractor which knows QGIS and the QEP
> process
> > > well enough to guarantee to the funder that the QEP will pass as-is,
> for
> > > the originally proposed amount. In this case, the contractor takes the
> > > risk.
> > >
> > > * The funder provides the QEP and makes the discussions with the
> > > community until a general agreement is reached. Then the funder finds a
> > > company/developer to pass a contract for the development phase.
> > >
> > > * The funder makes a first contract with a company/developer, to write
> > > the QEP and reach an agreement (or not). Once the QEP status is set
> > > (voted as is, voted modified, deferred, rejected), the funder can pass
> > > another contract with this company/developer (or another) to implement
> > > the QEP.
> > >
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > >> Thx,
> > >>
> > >> Andrea.
> > >>
> > >> Il 25/08/2014 07:42, Martin Dobias ha scritto:
> > >> > I had the same impression as Nyall. PSC is meant to steer direction
> of
> > >> > the whole project, not to deal with technical details of
> > >> > implementations in QEPs - after all, only 3 out of 7 positions are
> > >> > meant for developers. At the same time I understand that creating
> > >> > another "developer" committee would make things more complex.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I think that voting on QEPs could be started when the QEP's author
> has
> > >> > impression that enough consensus was reached. Most projects also
> allow
> > >> > their RFCs to go to 'deferred' state if the proposal is too
> > >> > controversial.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Qgis-developer mailing list
> > >> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20140825/94abde82/attachment-0001.html>