[Qgis-psc] Voting for grants

[Nyall Dawson]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 19:35, Martin Dobias <wonder.sk at gmail.com> wrote:

> What I would like to suggest is whether we could move towards a
> scoring process that is common in public bids... QGIS.org would define
> criteria that would be scored 0 to 10 and voting members would score
> those criteria separately, for example:
> 1. fit to the grant call - something that looks like a feature if we
> don't want features could be scored low
> 2. value to the project - is this something really important that will
> help lots of users / developers? Or something more obscure that few
> users would benefit from?
> 3. proposal quality - is it clear what would be done and how it would
> be done? Or is the proposal brief and missing important details?
> 4. price - is the expected budget reasonable?
> 5. author's track of record - this could be scored low if the author
> is unknown to the project or it is unclear if they have the right
> skills

I like this concept!

> Or if we skip the criteria, but at least allow voting members to score
> _all_ proposals, each with a single number 0-10 ?

My concern with this would be that it would be easy for people to just
rank everything 8 /9 / 10, cos it all sounds useful! The more in-depth
breakdown of criteria would help guide voters in exactly what factors
they SHOULD be considering, instead of just "oh yeah that sounds
pretty nice: I'll give it 9/10!".

Nyall

>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:06 AM Denis Rouzaud <denis.rouzaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc