[Qgis-psc] AGM: plugins vote

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Paolo

On 4/8/20 4:55 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Il 08/04/20 16:32, Matthias Kuhn ha scritto:
>> 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".
> the current situation is not unclear. I think it is fair to give a
> minimal context, describing how things are running since many years;
> "current situation" sounds very neutral to me.
> Maybe someone can suggest a more neutral wording?
I still think this was mostly a vision of individuals and not a general 
perception of how it is/should be handled. I was *very* surprised to 
hear that this is the current situation and I think it was and is 
unclear to others too. I also wouldn't be surprised to find a couple of 
binary wheels and plugins which are not cross-platform - but nobody ever 
noticed - in the repository.
> I though about the name to give to the "non-pro" committee. I avoided
> "against committee", because it sounds ugly to me, and gives a negative
> impression.
> Perhaps we can skip the problem just replacing "* committee" with "We"?
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Cheers.

I'm fine with dumping the term "pro committee" formulation. But that's 
not the point.

My main point is that "the status quo" as listed is not as clear to 
everyone as described in the text. Or is it really that clear to 
everyone? I would love to hear some other opinions of community 
representatives and PSC members on this.

Matthias