[Qgis-psc] AGM: plugins vote

[Alessandro Pasotti]

The no-binary policy in the official repository has been enforced and
listed since day 1 , see https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/

I'm not sure if the other rule about cross-platform has been written down
somewhere, I've always taken that one for granted.

I see no problems if a plug-in does its post-installation downloads though.

Just my two cents.



On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 17:44 Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200408/26425e74/attachment.html>