[Qgis-psc] Selection of successful QGIS grant applications

[Nathan Woodrow]

Hey,

I think that in the end that is just what can happen. We are doing this
open for a reason.  Having said I would be keen to see if we can fund the
OS X packages for Larry anyway even if we need to pull some more money.
Given it's an infrastructure issue and would help the uptake on OS X even
more, which may lead to more funds, I think it's ok to use money for that
outside of grants, but I'm not also on the PSC ;)

Regards,
Nathan

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Neumann, Andreas <a.neumann at carto.net>
wrote:

> 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 €. 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c06d1c16/attachment.html>