[Qgis-psc] Financial warning

Mon Mar 4 23:52:39 PST 2019

Hi,

I agree with what was said. I would like to point out that sometimes I
found a bit difficult to find a "nice" bug to fix. I mean, bug report with:

1. quality description and how to reproduce steps (potentially platform)
2. evaluation of how many QGIS users are affected by this bug (let say even
crash/regression in very rarely used code vs some minor bug in some
frequently used code)

I spend significant time staring at the issue tracker and browsing the
issues (and multiply the time spend by number of developers...) . It would
be great to do some kind of voting
for bugs nominated for paid bug-fix program, if something like that is
possible? Nominated bugs should be also properly described, so the
developers just can take them and fix them.

Peter

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:01 AM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 03:30, Jonathan Moules
> <jonathan-lists at lightpear.com> wrote:
>
> >  > - what would be a fair amount how to distribute the money between
> > devs/companies and who would decide?
> > Maybe having some sort of auction process where the lowest bids get the
> > work.
>
> Just to add my 2c to the existing replies:
>
> Currently the bulk of QGIS development work is handled by a handful of
> commercial organisations. We're very fortunate in the QGIS project
> that although these organisations are in some ways competitors, there
> is still a great spirit of cooperation and collaboration between them
> all. Requiring a process like a reverse auction sounds very aggressive
> and competitive to me, and risks harming this cooperative spirit (to
> *everyone's* detriment).
>
> The other reality is that all developers/organisations participating
> in the funded bug fixes are running at something like 3:1 unpaid vs
> paid bug fixing. When you factor this in, the rate is actually a
> bargain! (not to mention that you're getting the efforts of THE qgis
> code experts, and the few people who can smash out bug fixes at a
> speed 100x of those not intimately aware of the guts of the codebase).
>
> I think, as others have said, the ideal solution would be getting more
> publicity out about the benefits of sponsoring the project and the
> return on investment received. I personally think the most logical
> next step here would be to implement
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/102 so that
> we have a direct marketing channel to ALL our users, in order to
> publicise efforts like this.
>
> Nyall
>
> >
> > Just my 2p.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On 2019-03-02 11:35, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > It is very hard to coordinate the exact amount of bug fixing, due to
> > > several reasons:
> > >
> > > - devs can only roughly tell me how many days they are really
> > > available. So I don't know in advance, until I get the invoice.
> > >
> > > - information comes in at totally different times. Some devs only tell
> > > me quite late that they are available while others already spent some
> > > days working on it
> > >
> > > - what would be a fair amount how to distribute the money between
> > > devs/companies and who would decide?
> > >
> > > In general I think we should be grateful that the core devs
> > > participate in the paid bug fixing campaign for the low rate of 100 €
> > > h for us - because if they would sell their services to clients at the
> > > same time, they would probably charge 150-180 € an hour and earn more
> > > and potentially have a more interesting task than fixing bugs in QGIS.
> > > However through their efforts, in return they get the benefit of a
> > > "better QGIS" where they could more easily sell their services around
> > > QGIS, if it more stable and of better quality. And lets not forget
> > > that we have also a lot of "unpaid" contributions towards QGIS.
> > >
> > > Personally, I would like to keep the process of accepting all
> > > available bug fixing hours we get, but rather try to get more funds in.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > Am 02.03.19 um 12:27 schrieb Paolo Cavallini:
> > >> Hi Andreas,
> > >> thanks for this warning. What prevents us from sticking to the budget,
> > >> and allocating to bugfixing only what is available?
> > >> I think communicating our needs will help in this regard: I believe
> > >> donors will be more motivated when they will know all the additional
> > >> donations will go into bugfixing.
> > >> All the best.
> > >>
> > >> On 02/03/19 12:17, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> In that respect I hope that our change from sponsors  to sustaining
> > >>> members (to be voted on during the upcoming AGM) will help to attract
> > >>> more organizations to join as financial supporters. I am positive
> that
> > >>> it will help, esp. for governmental organizations and universities.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andreas
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 02.03.19 um 11:50 schrieb Andreas Neumann:
> > >>>> Dear PSC,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In the light of the current discussion around AGM and fast release
> > >>>> pace, here is some additional information and concern I have as the
> > >>>> financial manager of the project:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Most of our financial resources go into bug fixing (> 50%) and I
> have
> > >>>> the impression that this share is increasing every year. Currently I
> > >>>> have to send out a warning that our financial resources are
> dwindling
> > >>>> rapidly - our bank account is down below 30k €. For every release we
> > >>>> spend about 10-20k more on bug fixing than allocated in the budget.
> As
> > >>>> a consequence, we will have to either cancel the QGIS grants this
> year
> > >>>> or skip bug fixing of release 3.8 or cut down drastically if we
> can't
> > >>>> find additional financial supporters. I am very grateful that many
> > >>>> core qgis devs can find the time to participate in the paid bug
> fixing
> > >>>> (and they do a very good job!) - but unfortunately bugs are coming
> in
> > >>>> quicker ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't want to sound overly pessimistic - but it is my duty to let
> > >>>> you know about this development that we currently spend more than we
> > >>>> get in. Something will have to change in this respect during the 3.8
> > >>>> release or we'll have to skip the QGIS grants program this year.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andreas
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190305/77642310/attachment.html>