[QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] Call for Grant Proposals 2025

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Hi Nyall,
The wish not to make the process longer comes from the very practical
aspect of getting a grant finished within the year.

The grant programme call can only go out when the budget is aproved. The
budget is usually aproved in December/early January.

So the call goes normally out in February and is open for some weeks.
The voting follows. Realistically we are talking about end of April
granting which is already quite late in the year.

That being said, maybe we should/could generally have the grant proposals
technically sound earlier? And then do the process only related to the
grant awarding?

Cheers Marco

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, 03:28 Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC, <
qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 03:03, Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nyall,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts on this. I appreciate the intent behind your
> suggestion, but I don’t see a huge advantage in adding the extra step of
> contributor voting before community ranking.
> >
> > In my opinion, if serious concerns are raised during the discussion
> period, we / the PSC can already decide to remove the proposal at that
> stage—no additional contributor voting needed. This keeps the process
> streamlined while still ensuring that technically unfeasible proposals
> don’t move forward.
> >
> > Happy to hear others’ thoughts on this!
>
> Thanks for the response Anita!
>
> I've been thinking more about this, and I'm not really comfortable
> with grant-related QEPs having a different approval process vs normal
> QEPs filed outside of grants. There's been a lot of work done this
> year to tighten up the development process and the new formalized QEP
> process is rather a central part of that.
>
> From my recollection, the QEP requirement was originally added to
> grant submissions because of concerns that grants would be awarded to
> non-technically-sound work. If this is still the case, could we maybe
> split the two things up? Eg, we change the grant submission
> prerequisite to "Only projects which have previously been submitted as
> a QEP and formally approved are eligible for grants". This means any
> (non feature!) QEP previously approved could be submitted, and it
> doesn't need to go through the QEP review process again. The normal
> process for QEP submission and voting would have already been applied.
> Then, we create an issue ticket on the QEP repository for the grant
> submission, and that's where the discussion around suitability of the
> project for a QGIS grant can occur (and where the progress of the work
> could be tracked).
>
> That shouldn't add too much burden to someone applying for a grant --
> it just means they can submit a QEP anytime and get the technical part
> discussed + agreed upon in advance, prior to submitting the grant
> request.
>
> Nyall
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Anita
> >
> >
> > On 2025-02-23 23:13, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> >
> > Hi Anita, PSC!
> >
> > > Our previous rounds of grant proposals have been a great success. We
> are
> > > very pleased to announce that this year’s round of grants is now
> > > available. The call is open to anybody who wants to make a funded
> > > contribution to QGIS, subject to the call conditions outlined in the
> > > application form. The deadline for this round is on Tuesday 2025-03-26.
> > >
> > > For more details, please read:
> > > http://blog.qgis.org/qgis-grants-10-call-for-grant-proposals-2025
> >
> > Thanks for offering this opportunity once again, and for the hard work
> you do in making this happen!
> >
> > I was wondering if we could make a small change to the process for
> submission going forward. Specifically, now that we're requiring that all
> QEP proposals go through a formal contributor voting and acceptance process
> (instead of the old "no comments means implicit acceptance" approach), I
> think the grant process should also take this into consideration and
> require that the associated QEPs have been voted on by contributors and
> accepted BEFORE they get put out to the community voting members for
> ranking.
> >
> > Otherwise we could have the awkward situation where a grant is submitted
> which sounds exciting, the QEP generates a bit of back and forth
> discussion, the grant wins but then is ultimately deemed technically
> unacceptable when the actual work is submitted for review.
> >
> > So my thoughts are that we could tweak the schedule to look like this:
> (changed bit in bold/italic)
> >
> > - Call for proposals (4 weeks)
> > - QEP discussion period (2 weeks)
> > - QEP moves to the CONTRIBUTOR voting stage. If not approved, then the
> grant is ineligible and will be withdrawn. Writing discussion summaries (1
> week)
> > - COMMUNITY Voting starts (2 weeks)
> > - Publication of results
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > Nyall
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We look forward to seeing all your great ideas for improving QGIS!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Anita
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QGIS-Developer mailing list
> > > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20250226/7569d980/attachment-0001.htm>