[Qgis-psc] Grant application suggestions for next time

[Luigi Pirelli]

This can be also useful to "filter" proposal... IMHO GEarth Plugin
shouldn't have access to grant program for reasons that can be discussed
previously.

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
*
https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 at 03:38, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi PSC,
>
> Denis and I were discussing the current grant system and we came up
> with a couple of suggestions which could be made for the next round of
> applications. Given that the current round of grant voting is closing
> today it's good timing to start these discussions early so that any
> changes we want to make could be in place well before the next round.
>
> Our suggestions are:
>
> 1. Create a new github repo for submission of the grant proposals -
> much like the current QGIS Enhancement Proposal (QEP) repo (
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues ). If we
> structured the applications this way then it allows people to ask
> questions and provide public feedback on individual proposals --
> something we currently lack the ability to do. It would also make it
> quite easy for a proposal to be "reopened" for a future round of
> grants (if it was not successful in a prior round), and all these
> comments and discussion would be retained.
>
> 2. Require that code-related proposals be accompanied by a QEP filed
> at least xx days in advance of the grant application. The current
> setup could potentially result in a very awkward situation if a grant
> application is voted in by the members and paid for by PSC, yet when
> the feature/enhancement is submitted as a pull request for inclusion
> in QGIS and the technical/UX details of the proposal first made
> available, it may THEN be deemed an unsatisfactory approach/unwanted
> change and prevented from being merged. Then we'd have a conflict
> between the project paying for changes vs maintainers deeming these
> changes unfit for merging. This situation would reflect very badly on
> the project's organisation and communication, so I think we need some
> safeguard in place to minimise the chance that it could happen.
> Opening a QEP prior to a grant request would mean that interested
> maintainers will already have had an opportunity to discuss and assess
> the changes, before they are introduced to the wider voting community
> as an option.
>
> Thanks again for all you hard work making these grants possible...
> it's exciting to see what will be funded as a result once again!
>
> 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/20180617/c5244279/attachment.html>