[Qgis-psc] Developer roles

Tue Sep 8 05:59:29 PDT 2020

On 08/09/2020 10:22, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:33 PM Régis Haubourg
> <regis.haubourg at oslandia.com> wrote:
>> Hi PSC,
>>
>> this discussion stalled during summer, I would like to be clear about what has been decided in the end as the next paid bugfixing period - which starts within 4 days.
>>
>> Is it clear who is eligible in the end to submit paid bugfixing program ?
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Régis
>>
> Hi Régis, I missed the last PSC meeting so there might be news I'm not aware of.
>
> Now, speaking as a core developer/community member and not as a PSC
> member (so, this is NOT of course an official PSC position) I must say
> we definitely need to set some rules for who is in the list of paid
> bug fixing and that I mostly agree with Nyall's opinion .
>
> Here are my additional thoughts:
>
> QGIS Core Development Skills is an important topic but it's not the
> main one and it's probably hard to measure: the number of
> commits/merged PRs in the last 2 years might be a good metric to
> determine the skills.
>
> What is much more important to me is commitment to the project: there
> are people who have the a.m. skills and also have been spending a
> large amount of their free/volunteer time developing QGIS core
> features and fixing bugs in QGIS core - and they have been doing this
> FOR YEARS!

Agreed as a thanksful user and contributor too, and partly not if I try
to imagine what happens if only two of our honorable commiters get hit
by a bus (or a tree next to a ski slope, haem, I just tried recently,
don't do it) .

>  - I think that the paid bug fixing program is an important
> source of income for those people expecially when they are self
> employed and it is also a small (compared to the real time they spend
> on the project) reward for their continuous long lasting activity on
> the project.

Understood. The self-employed argument would however remove most of the
contributors here, I would stick to personal efforts as a criteria, or
add priority criteria for self employed lacking work, but not a black or
white rule. 

However, I feel involved in the project for years too, spend lots of
hidden narrowing down issues though I never charged any day to the bug
fixing program. I spend all my efforts in trying to convince customers
to get to the point where they jump in a sustainable way of
contributing. I'm sorry this hidden efforts can't at least benefit to
the guys we work with.

I'm sorry we restrict the discussion to core C++ dev activity.

We desperatly need more guys like Giovanni upstream. I was glad to help
here before choosing the path of trying to structure the OSGEO-Fr -
choice I start to regret now seeing the counter effect it has had here.

> Think about a contributor that has spent a decade contributing his
> free time to QGIS with no funds that finds out that a junior intern in
> a company is getting QGIS funds for bug fixing, how should she feel?

Who talked about interns here? Let's not fall into the trap of
caricatural thoughts and try to end up with objective rules. Yes you saw
blog article about QWC2 from 2 internship at Oslandia, they are strictly
nowhere related with QGIS contribution here. And sorry to say, we in the
tech should be more focused on raising a new generation behind us.

We try to get senior developper contribute in a long term maner and jump
in the project beyond pure paid work. And the proof is that even if some
are not working with us anymore, they still contribute. I'm really happy
of this and it should be the main QGIS.org goal to me.

>
> So, it's difficult to draw a line, but our limited funds are IMO
> better spent when given to core developers that have a long and
> continuous history of contribution and commitment to the project.
Agreed on how difficult this is.
>
> My preliminary proposal for the rules:
>
> - at least XXX years of QGIS community contribution (it might not be
> C++ core but any other QGIS contribution such as documentation,
> helping people on mailing lists etc.)
> - a YYY number of accepted PRs/commits in the last 2 years
> - core developer "status", because QGIS bugfixing is mainly C++ (and a
> bit of Python)

Please don't forget bug triage is also an activity here,

>
> I am not sure about the values: XXX may be something between 2 and 4
> and YYY something like 10 PRs and/or 100 commits?

Julien has opened 116 PR up to now ,  174 commits  - since late 2018

Loïc has opened 138 PR and 327 commits since early 2017 (and a funder of
QGIS before this)

An a big part of this is not funded. But we do as much as we can. Life,
children, and various events let us the time we get.

I let the PSC judge, we just need an answer if we want more developpers
on the project. And don't forget we are not enough, I remember bug fix
sessions where almost no one add enough time left to play. And this
should be avoided as much as possible. The more we are, the more
resilient we are as a project.

> Note that the above rules would probably exclude some of the
> participants to the last few bug fixing rounds, I'm sorry for them.
> Kind regards.
Bye

Régis

>>
>> On 29/06/2020 09:56, Saber Razmjooei wrote:
>>
>>  > not junior developers but people with real talent and skills, experienced developers with knowledge C++, Qt, Python, etc.
>>
>> In our experience, working with GSOC students and spending time to mentor and help them to get to know the code/community, they have REAL talents and their contributions have been on par or exceeding some of those "senior" developers who get paid for living.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Saber
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:26, Vincent Picavet (ml) <vincent.ml at oslandia.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 26/06/2020 11:27, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>>>> Vincent - snipping out the 99% of your email I agree with -- don't
>>>> take my comments below as meaning I disagree with the bulk of your
>>>> reply! :)
>>> Ok, great to hear :-)
>>>
>>> Let's discuss the remaining disagreement then.
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 18:56, Vincent Picavet (ml)
>>>>> I tend to disagree here, because I consider that growing the community and
>>>>> onboarding new developers has much more value in the long run, than having a
>>>>> code developped 20% faster.
>>>> Honestly, in the case of the current crop of "core developers", I
>>>> think 20% is a huge disservice to their skills. I'd honestly,
>>>> conservatively, estimate that a developer who already has intimate
>>>> knowledge of the QGIS codebase, Qt, GDAL etc will be at a minimum 10x
>>>> faster than a new contributor to the project. I don't think anyone
>>>> could ever argue that we only get 20% more value from funding Even's
>>>> time vs someone completely new to the project! (Try 20k% more value,
>>>> and you're in the right ballpark...)
>>> I did not want to underestimate the efficiency of long-term core developers. Of
>>> course they are faster, and probably produce much better quality for the code.
>>> "20%" was not to take as an absolute number, forget this number. My point is not
>>> about numbers anyway.
>>> The reality is much more complex than this : QGIS codebase is huge and even a
>>> long term contributor may have trouble in some areas of the code. And other
>>> contributors having never contributed to QGIS could be really efficient because
>>> they focus on an area they are expert in ( imagine Even before any contribution
>>> to QGIS core, but knowing extensively GDAL ).
>>> My point is : diversity and growing developer's community is difficult, while
>>> highly required for a project to be sane, avoid bus-factor and continue to strive.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I would personnaly like to see the grant program as an onboarding program. But
>>>>> this is not a strong request, and maybe we could have another program dedicated
>>>>> especially to onboarding new developers ?
>>>> I disagree - I think given the current round of high quality
>>>> submissions it's clear that even when we restrict the program to
>>>> established contributors there's more high value work vs funds
>>>> available. If we divert some of these grant funds to onboard new
>>>> contributors then it's definitely going to be at the cost of the
>>>> high-priority submissions we already receive.
>>>>
>>>> But regarding a dedicated program -- isn't GSOC ideal for this? That's
>>>> exactly what it's oriented to, and doesn't cost us anything...!
>>> I think we are not really talking of the same thing. GSoC is for students,
>>> junior developers. While it is a great program which should probably be used
>>> more to onboard new junior developers to the project, it is not really what I
>>> had in mind.
>>>
>>> I am talking about onboarding new developers, not junior developers but people
>>> with real talent and skills, experienced developers with knowledge C++, Qt,
>>> Python, etc.
>>> GSoC is not adapted for them, and we do not really have any incentive for this
>>> kind of people to join the project. This is where room for improvement lies.
>>>
>>>>>> Fully agree, we should have the same thing for a "non-coding" contributor
>>>>>> (think Richard, Harrisou, Giovanni ...) which do an amazing job for QGIS as a
>>>>>> project but don't express it in C++
>>>>> +1
>>>> I'm also +1, but I think we should separate the terms explicitly here.
>>>> I would like to see the "developer endorsed by QGIS" title as a
>>>> reflection of their **coding** talents, and something which can be
>>>> used on a CV/resume as a reflection of their development skills. The
>>>> "endorsed, high value" community contributor title should be used for
>>>> non-developer contributors only, and have it's own set of guidelines
>>>> for eligibility.
>>> I always find differentiating "the developer" from other contributors tends to
>>> minimize "other contributors" importance and value. But I understand that
>>> eligibility could have different rules, and therefore a specific role would be
>>> required. We would have to be careful to give them as much importance as
>>> developers, if not more.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vincent
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>>
>> --
>> Saber Razmjooei
>> www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>> --
>> Open Source GIS Expert / Water management
>>
>> mail: regis.haubourg at oslandia.com
>> tél: 0033 184 257 870
>> ---------------------------------
>> http://oslandia.com/
>>
>> OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
>> PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
>> RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
-- 
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management 

mail: regis.haubourg at oslandia.com 
tél: 0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.