[Qgis-psc] Voting for grants

[Denis Rouzaud]

Hi all,

It's indeed an interesting discussion and I feel very well concerned…
I have been personally influenced by the corporate voting during last
session.

While I understand this concerns, I would remind that the voting member is
something personal and not tight to a company.
I have mixed feelings. As far as I can see, elected voting members have
proven real engagement towards QGIS project.

Again, voting rights are personal. But the money allowed money for grants
will generally go to the company rather than the individual. Thereby, I
would rather try to restrict the number of allowed grants per entity rather
than restricting the voting rights.

But we'll fall into the same point Matthias was mentionning earlier: what's
an entity. Some devs are more or less coupled, without being hold
literally in a company.

So, my order of preference of action would be
1: try to make voting members aware of the conflict of interest and trust
them
2: if needed, restrict per company

Now, looking at this year proposal, I am far more concerned about what we
propose to vote on rather than the voting process:

1. Many of the grants are features, while we call for a refactoring /
infrastructure round
2. Some are made by unknown people from the community, and I have mixed
feelings about this (openess vs rewarding of involvment)

I don't have a perfect solution to propose but I think we should maybe
re-think the process more globally. What is the goal of the grants
proposal?
* Is it to fund projects that are difficult to fund otherwise? But, then
shouldn't it be a kind of ongoing budget?
* Are we trying to attract devs?
* Are we trying to replace a crowd-funding operations for nice-to-have?

Best wishes,
Denis

Le mar. 2 juin 2020 à 09:16, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> a écrit :

> Hi all
>
> On 5/30/20 1:21 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> > In general, I'd propose that we consider introducing (in the official
> > statutes) a limit of one-voting-member-per-organisation. This would
> > bring the community voting membership into line with the user group
> > membership, where user groups have one single voting member who
> > represents the group's view as a single vote. This would also limit
> > the potential for (god forbid) a "hostile takeover" situation, where a
> > coalition of organisations (commercial or user group) could dominate
> > voting. (I think it would be wise to apply the same one-member-per-org
> > limit to PSC/board membership too!).
>
> A very good discussion.
>
> How would a one-member-per organisation rule work in reality?
>
> If someone is a very active and respected member of the community with
> all the skills required to judge and discuss a QEP (or other motion) and
> has voting rights. And then gets employed by a company which already has
> someone with voting rights, will his voting rights be withdrawn? I would
> expect that this will have an effect on his choice of employer and could
> impact his engagement within community processes.
>
> Also, how would we deal with loosely coupled groups of developers which
> are legally not an organisation/company but still share business,
> communication and opinions?
>
> Best regards
>
> 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/20200602/c9944b92/attachment.html>