[Qgis-psc] Toughts after November PSC

[Anita Graser]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:36 PM Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it>
wrote:

> Il 21/11/19 09:12, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:34, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it
> > <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>> wrote:
> >     * we should always prefer for our infrastructure simple and
> libre solutions ...

> Right. If possible and doesn't trigger a lot of followup costs...
> ... I think we should avoid making the project less open than it could be.
>

I agree on the general sentiment. However, which specific topic from this
week's meeting is making us potentially less open?

> My idea of these different types of budgets is:
> >
> > - First budget of recurring expenses: ...
> > - Second one "the buffer budgets for unexpected expenses around PSC and
> > our QGIS IT infrastructure" ...
> > - Third one: extra projects and long-term strategic investments. ...


+1 to this budget structure based on all the arguments Andreas already
provided.

The budget is approved by voting members. If they think think that the
grant budget should be bigger and the buffer budget should be smaller, they
have the opportunity to decide on this issue every year.

> I agree that it would be more useful to
> > publish those results e.g. in our official QGIS blog.
>

I can prepare a template that we can send to people who received grants as
an optional help for structuring their report. It shouldn't be long, just a
few lines and links to relevant resource.

the point to me is to have everything in a single location;


Do have have a suggestion? More folders in Google Drive? Everything on the
blog or wiki?
One option could be that a link to the report has to be put on a certain
wiki page.

> Sorry, we haven't discussed or came up with a solution for
> > the documentation problem yet.
> I see this issue keep on attracting little interest.
>

That's a bit unfair assessment. We were waiting for you to bring up the
topic and the meeting already ran over time as is.

>     * we need simple rules for adding news, even though a degree of
> >     flexibility is useful; cen we agree on [1]?
>

I suggest making a motion to vote on it. As far as I can see, the last post
ended with "Anything to add?" - Nobody replied, so there's nothing to add.
Therefore, after a couple of days, a motion to vote should be made.

In short, I propose to put forward all the issues here on the ML, and
> leave to the voice meetings what we were unable to solve during the month.


I'm in favor of shorter meetings. To get there, however, we need people to
follow up on their threads and make timely calls for votes instead of
leaving discussions open ended. Whoever starts the thread should usually
make the motion to vote when the discussion is done.

Regards,
Anita
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191121/e3d00659/attachment.html>