[Qgis-psc] AGM: plugins vote

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Paolo,

Thanks for moving forward and writing some reasoning.

I would like to change the wording "current situation" and "status quo 
committee" in these texts. This suggests that there has been a conscious 
decision by a committee like the PSC. I'd rather describe it as a 
"currently unclear situation".

Matthias


On 4/8/20 4:24 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi all,
> give the long list of modifications in the ticket
> https://github.com/qgis/PSC/issues/1
> I think it is better to give the question a last check.
> I'd appreciate if you could check if there is some mistake.
> Thanks.
> ===
> Current situation: only plugins which are multiplatform, free of
> binaries are allowed in official repository; plugins can fetch binaries
> post installation
>
> # Vote 1: Plugins are allowed to be platform specific
>
> Arguments against:
> The aim of QGIS.org is to freely empower all users; platform specific
> plugins limit functionalities to a subset of users. Given that the
> majority of users use Windows, it is quite likely that a number of
> Windows-only plugins will appear, thus putting users of free software at
> a disadvantage. Furthermore, clean coding is usually multiplatform.
>
> Arguments in favour:
> QGIS.org wants to give users the freedom to use QGIS the way they want
> and to share what they did. By allowing users to share plugins even if
> they are platform specific, these can be used by others on the same
> platform. Everyone else has the possibility to take these plugins and
> adapt them for more platforms. By allowing plugins to be platform
> specific we also open up the possibility to ship plugins which give
> access to specific tools like the touch bar, a hardware piece that is
> only available on mac.
> ---
> # Vote 2: Plugins are allowed to include FOSS binaries or libraries
>
> Arguments against:
> Distributing binaries along with plugins does not allow us to examine
> the code, and is a serious security risk. FOSS binaries can be checked,
> but this is extra work to which we should allocate resources.
> Having in the system many different copies of the same libraries may
> create problems, and encourages ad hoc patches that are not merged upstream.
>
> Arguments in favour:
> Many of the tools we use in everyday life are delivered in binary
> format. QGIS, Python, the operating system and much more are installed
> from binary packages on most systems. This allows everyone out there to
> benefit from these applications and libraries without using a compiler.
> ---
> # Vote 3: "Plugins are allowed to include proprietary binaries" and
> "Plugins should not be allowed to fetch (proprietary?) binaries post
> installation"
>
> Arguments against:
> Distributing binaries along with plugins does not allow us to examine
> the code, and is a serious security risk.
> Fetching post install give the responsibility of the installation to the
> user, who can autonomously evaluate security risks.
>
> Arguments in favour:
> Plugins are a way to integrate QGIS with custom business logic, external
> applications and hardware. Some tools are not open source. We want to
> empower QGIS users to integrate QGIS in the most flexible way possible
> with the best tools for their workflow. This already applies for data
> providers, where we integrate with MrSID, Oracle, ECW, Excel files and
> other proprietary formats and databases.
> Every plugin is required to comply with licensing requirements and
> inform the user about their rights and duties, this applies for
> proprietary as well as open source plugins.
> ---
> General
> Arguments against:
> The status quo committee believes the current situation worked well for
> years, and plugins are a huge success for QGIS. Changing it will not
> bring substantial advantages, and may cause issues especially for users
> of free operating systems.
>
> Arguments in favour:
> The pro committee wants to give users the freedom to use QGIS, their
> information and their computers the way they want. We are convinced that
> open source has a very strong backup in the QGIS community and that we
> can better encourage developers and users to foster open source by
> leaving them the freedom rather than putting restrictions in place.
> We are convinced that it is the right thing to give developers the
> possibility to share their work, to transparently communicate to a user
> what's inside their plugins and to give each individual user the power
> to decide what's appropriate for him.