[Qgis-psc] Environmental policy

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi Paolo, 

Thanks for preparing this vote. 

The following things are unclear to me: 

Who is going to vote? PSC? Voting members? Anyone interested? 

If it is the voting members, I think we need a different platform for
voting than this mailing list. If it is PSC, then yes, we can vote here
on the mailing list and summarize the decisions. 

Thanks for the clarification, 

Andreas 

On 2020-01-28 09:08, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Hi all,
> sorry to insit, but I think we should decide soon, as we are getting
> close to the date, and I see many did not book their travel yet:
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/24th-Contributor-Meeting-in-'s-Hertogenbosch
> BTW, I'm not sure we can apply this decision retrospectively: what to do
> if someone has already booked a flight?
> Cheers.
> 
> Il 26/01/20 16:12, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto: 
> 
>> Hi all,
>> I think now it's time to vote. Probably several participants to hte next
>> HF are waiting for our decision before booking their tickets.
>> Based on the discussion I'm rephrasing the questions as follows.
>> 
>> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?
>> * yes, as an independent document
>> * yes, as a part of our social contract/vision/etc
>> * no
>> 
>> * how many in-person meetings do we want per year?
>> * 0
>> * 1
>> * 2
>> 
>> * do we want general meetings, or a series of smaller ones in sync, so
>> to minimize total movements and promote participation across the globe?
>> * general
>> * local
>> 
>> * do we want the participants to travel by train instead of plane?
>> * yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low
>> impact means
>> * yes, reimbursement will be allowed for trains and other low impact
>> means; flying will be reimbursed only if
>> * distance is more than a fixed amount (e.g. 1,500 km)
>> * train will take significantly longer (e.g. 10 h) than flying
>> * cost will be significantly lower (e.g. 300 EUR)
>> * yes, we will suggest all participants to minimize their impact,
>> leaving the choice to individuals, and reimbursing anyway
>> 
>> I believe all major points are listed here; if not, please suggest
>> improvements.
>> Cheers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20200128/ce066440/attachment.html>