[Qgis-psc] Selection of successful QGIS grant applications

[Neumann, Andreas]

Hi Nyall, 

According to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tHWM0aILCXyGvMj8YsIxo4ynmJH_wA2VDYVrEs_QLtI/edit#gid=1593575986
if we take out the "Processing Algorithm Documentation", the "Update
MacOS CMake Bundling Scripts" still wouldn't make it. 

However, the PSC could decide to still fund these additional 1.8k EUR. I
would be a +1 on that and think we can afford it. The multi-platform
nature of QGIS is a big plus when comparing it with other platforms and
we should continue to invest into our multiple platforms - esp. when it
comes to such infrastructure work. 

Personally, I am really surprised and a bit disappointed that "QGIS 3D"
was so popular and I was hoping that "Update MacOS CMake Bundling
Scripts" would make it in the top proposals. I was thinking that it
would be easy to find funds for cool 3D stuff or other cool new
features, but not so easy to find funders for infrastructure work or
important and less visible under-the-hood improvements. Seems like not
all voting members think along these lines that primarily important
boring, under-the-hood and infrastructure stuff should be sponsored, and
that the "cool" stuff should be funded through other sources. Not that I
am against 3D, and certainly not against Martins proposal - I hope that
this is clear. 

Andreas 

On 2017-04-21 00:28, Nyall Dawson wrote:

> On 21 April 2017 at 07:47, Tim Sutton <tim at qgis.org> wrote: 
> 
>> Hi Larry
>> 
>> On 20 Apr 2017, at 7:24 PM, Larry Shaffer <larrys at dakotacarto.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Tim and PSC,
>> 
>> Is the a reason normal cumulative weighting of the votes was not used instead of the per-level exclusionary approach?
>> 
>> Attached are the tally results when done in a cumulative manner, which I think is a fairer representation of one's vote and reflection upon each project's overall importance, when compared to the current method. Note the very different results, though the top projects are still fairly similar.
>> 
>> Thanks that makes much better sense - I have updated the spreadsheet summary tab accordingly. As you say the outcome for the top 5 items is the same (though their sequence changes) - I will follow your approach for future grant votes.
> 
> Fantastic work Tim + PSC, this is all very exciting to see!
> 
> Inevitable question - if the processing documentation work gets funded
> through the documentation budget, does that mean the (much needed) OSX
> packaging work would squeeze in?
> 
> Nyall
> _______________________________________________
> 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-psc/attachments/20170421/533f6221/attachment.html>