[Qgis-psc] New QEP process

[Nathan Woodrow]

I agree and that is no my intention.  So if this doesn't work we can cut it
down more, however the whole point of it is so that we move as one and not
random parts.  I don't want to take away from the speed of the project
however I think it's always good to have some kind of process so we can
coordinate the efforts if required.

- Nathan

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
wrote:

> Il 15/11/2015 13:44, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>
> > We need to find a way to manage the growing amount of bureaucracy we are
> > introducing into the project. I think many of Jürgen’s comments over the
> > past weeks speak to this. Its nice to make the project organised but we
> > need to make sure that new (and existing) users are aware of the
> > procedures and at the same time, that those procedures don’t weigh down
> > the contribution process to the point that only those in commercial
> > environments will ever venture so spend the time to make a patch.
> >
> > I think at minimum the various processes we have should be provided as
> > notes in the project governance documentation, and we should really try
> > to make things so that we can maintain a rapid development cycle.
>
> Agreed fully. Not easy to keep a good balance here. And let's remember
> the most surprising result of our recent poll is that users need more
> functions, so we cannot afford slowing down the development pace
> considerably.
> All the best.
>
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20151116/a86e23f3/attachment.html>