[Qgis-psc] AGM: plugins vote

[Matthias Kuhn]

Hi Alessandro,

Thank you for jumping in and also for including 
https://plugins.qgis.org/publish/ in the discussion.

For clarity: currently "no binaries" is listed as a requirement while 
"cross platform" is a recommendation.

Regards
Matthias

On 4/8/20 6:01 PM, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20200409/dc5e50da/attachment.html>