[Qgis-developer] Project quality discussion

[Denis Rouzaud]

On 11/10/2015 08:52 AM, Hugo Mercier wrote:
> Yes, that would be ideal.
> 
> But do we have enough money for that ?
> And is it a full time job ?

As stated at the HF, I am much more in favor of 2 to 4 part time devs
than 1 full time (as seen in the PSC minutes).

It might be a bit less efficient in terms of productivity:
* it is more neutral (several opinions/people around)
* it is more fair regarding which company is involved (it can be shared
on several companies involved in QGIS)
* it is less risky (it does not rely on a single person: what happens
when he leaves, is on holidays, etc)

My 2c, for what it's worth.


> 
> Or to put it another way: what is the budget we can assign for this task ?
> 
> On 09/11/2015 23:59, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>> The main problem I see in having a formal pay to review/merge model, no
>> matter the scale, is that it is a pay to win model no matter how to
>> goes.  If you have the money you can pay someone to push it though
>> quicker which doesn't give others the same ability if they don't have
>> the cash.  
>>
>> Personally the only way I can see this model working is if we have a
>> full time dev for the project that can review most PRs, or the QGIS.ORG
>> <http://QGIS.ORG> board can allocate funds to a core dev to review a set
>> of PRs. This way the project is in control and not "Hey X, I have a
>> stack of cash here. Be a buddy and merge my stuff for me will ya"
>>
>> I am streamlining the QEP process so that the whole think is quicker and
>> faster to do.
>>
>> - Nathan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Hugo Mercier <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
>> <mailto:hugo.mercier at oslandia.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 09/11/2015 12:23, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>>     > 2015-11-09 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
>>     > <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com <mailto:nyall.dawson at gmail.com>>>:
>>     >
>>
>>     >
>>     >     The way I read this is that THEY would have to pay for their
>>     >     contribution to be reviewed.
>>     >
>>     >     Nyall
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Only if nobody volunteers to review that for free.
>>
>>
>>     Yes. Or to put it differently: only if THEY want a guarantee on
>>     acceptability / decision delay
>>
>>
>>     >
>>     > To address 2, the QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG>
>>     will ask if somebody is
>>     > volunteering to review the code in a certain time (and keep the money
>>     > for the project in that case) an hire a core dev to do the code review
>>     > in case no one is available (still keeping part of the money for the
>>     > internal expenses).
>>     >
>>
>>     I agree. But I am pretty sure if it is known there is money for a
>>     review, nobody would like to review it for free (and it would make
>>     sense). So I am not sure about the first part of your "if" :)
>>
>>     I also think it could generalize to QEP reviews as well.
>>
>>     > This is not killing voluntary work, provides some additional funds for
>>     > QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG>, reward core devs
>>     (and feeds their children)
>>     > and moreover guarantee certain times and a clear and transparent path
>>     > for new features approval process to not-core devs.
>>
>>     +1
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Qgis-developer mailing list
>>     Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>