[Qgis-psc] Notes about certification

[Alexandre Neto]

Sorry, I think I wasn't very clear in my last email.

We, as a user group, have been discussing when to consider a company "QGIS
friendly". To clarify, it had nothing to do with the Training Certification
process, but for the creation on our site of a page dedicated to services
companies. Only companies with certain criteria can show in there. Yet,
both their services and their contributions will be listed there. This way,
users can take their own conclusions on how deep each company is involved
(fingers crossed for users finding contributions important).

The user group, when asked by the Certification program about if a certain
company should be allowed to be certificated, would prefer to use the same
kind of criteria to say yes or no. Obviously this should be adding to any
criteria that the QGIS Project decides on.

This being said, you are right. 500 Euros is probably too cheap for a
mid-size company in Europe, but maybe it's not such a small  contribution
for a small one man show company in South-America. In some cases, money
might be the only way a company can contribute back to the project. It's
not easy to measure people's contributions in a fair way.

Anyway, I think we (PROJECT) need to be clear about who we want to be
certificated for training and work from there.

Best regards,

Alexandre Neto

A sáb, 15/09/2018, 13:20, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it> escreveu:

> Hi all,
>
> Il 09/13/2018 01:18 AM, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
> > My concern here -- in the name of "giving back", we're actually mainly
> > just benefiting the "leaches".
> lots of interesting thought in this thread, thanks to all.
> Let me try to summarize:
>
> * software and documentation are very similar, but not exactly the same
> thing: when donating code (which is often paid anyway) we help primarily
> users, so our customers; when donating docs we help more our competitors
> * as a consequence, donating training material is feasible for those who
> do mainly coding, less so for who live mostly on training
> * our aim is to give a fair advantage to those who contribute to the
> project
> * the requirement to show the training material comes primarily from the
> need to check the quality of the training
> * we all would like to see free training material, but nobody sees this
> as a blocker (?)
> * even if free, the material could be useless for us (e.g. extracting
> content from pdf slides can be painful), and cheating is very easy
> * we want to move forward.
>
> A possible solution would be:
> * require to submit the training material to the committee for
> evaluation, which is a critical step in acceptance
> * suggest to submit in a source, text form (rst or md) following our
> documentation style, if possible
> * require an explicit licence for the material, suggesting a CC-BY-SA
> whenever possible.
>
> As for the evaluation, we agreed that there are no good and simple
> measures for contribution. Because of this we decided to let proponents
> show what they have done, and evaluate each proposal.
> I am not sure a bronze sponsorship is enough for this: in fact this
> would equate to a cheap entry fee to be accepted. I would leave
> sponsoring out of the evaluation.
>
> All the best.
>
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Alexandre Neto
---------------------
@AlexNetoGeo
http://sigsemgrilhetas.wordpress.com
http://gisunchained.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20180916/931d5588/attachment.html>