[Qgis-psc] Plugin Repository Policy

[Paolo Cavallini]

Il 19 novembre 2016 20:08:37 CET, Trevor Wiens <tsw.web at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>PSC Members,
>
>I've joined the list to put forward a concern with the policy regarding
>approvals for plugins. It is important that you all understand that I
>really appreciate the QGIS project and am an active promoter of the
>tool in
>my work, but the current criteria around plugins are untenable for me
>and
>my team so I am writing to suggest some options for your consideration.
>
>For context I'll mention that I have been teaching GIS courses in
>Canada
>with QGIS for the last 6 years and promote the use of the platform in
>my
>professional interactions. I have created plugins for using QGIS with
>Marxan but also for in-person map based interviews as part of my
>business
>and I when I make updates it is in response to bugs or users requests
>so I
>need to be able to release those updates quickly.
>
>In the past I was granted the ability to control releases of our
>plugins
>but this new policy has now removed this option and it is becoming
>problematic for me to respond in a timely fashion. I released and
>update to
>my recent QMarxan Toolbox plugin over a week ago and it is still
>waiting
>approval so I've just created my own repository to deal with this
>delay.
>This is not an ideal solution and not a path I wanted to pursue but the
>current policy leaves me no choice.
>
>As the policy currently stands because I am not involved in the day to
>day
>operations and have not and will not ever be traveling to Europe for a
>Hackfest, I can not approve my own releases. As the head of an company
>that
>provides software as a service in addition to complementary tools, I
>understand the project's desire to maintain its good name. However
>there
>must be a more realistic approach to how plugins are released. I have a
>business to run so I don't have time to zoom off to Europe for
>conference
>that is not relevant to my business. With a small team I am not able to
>dedicate staff time to be regular contributors to the project.
>
>You have now added the "trusted" status to the repository which opens a
>new
>possibility that appears to have not been considered before. For the
>folks
>that are part of the core team and regular contributors to the core
>project
>then giving them trusted status makes sense. For other contributors
>such as
>myself that have been contributing plugins for a long time and never
>had
>any issues raised with them, it would be reasonable for them to be
>given
>permission to have control of their own releases but not as trusted
>plugins.
>
>I would even consider contributing money so that someone from the core
>team
>could do an in-depth code review of our plugins to identify bugs and
>suggest ways of optimizing performance to gain the ability to control
>our
>release process. I have my doubts about this idea however since I'm not
>aware of anyone on the core team to has expertise in either Marxan or
>in-person direct to digital interviews with land uses so I am not going
>to
>spend my time and money educating someone; the review would have to be
>about bugs, not functional design or purpose.
>
>If some sort of accommodation can not be reached I will have no choice
>but
>to continue to run my own repository. This is sub-optimal for many
>reasons
>including needing to explain to users the reasons why.
>
>Thanks for your consideration.
>
>TSW
>-- 
>Trevor Wiens
>Apropos Information Systems
>aproposinfosystems.com
>Calgary, Alberta
>Ph. 403-973-5901
>Fax 780-666-4580
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Qgis-psc mailing list
>Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

Hi Trevor,
I think we can fix this.
All the best.
-- 
Sent from mobile. Sorry for being short
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20161119/c864aeb1/attachment.html>