[Qgis-psc] Grant voting 2021 closed

[Anita Graser]

On 24.04.2021 23:48, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 9:36 PM Anita Graser <anitagraser at gmx.at
> <mailto:anitagraser at gmx.at>> wrote:
>
>     Thank you Tim and Etienne!
>
>     After summing up the 8 top ranked proposals, the total is €22,500.
>     The next proposal would exceed the planned programme budget of
>     €25,000.
>
>     Our options are to 1. fund the top8, 2. top up the budget to fund
>     the top9, 3. pick a cheaper proposal (like the macOS notarization)
>     that still fits into the budget.
>
>     What do you think? I've put this topic on the PSC meeting agenda
>     but maybe we can resolve it earlier, here on the list.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Anita
>
>
>
> Hi Anita,
>
> Thank you for taking care of this, I would say that if the budget can
> cover the difference it would be the best option.

Hi Alessandro,

Is this a +1 for one of the three options listed above or a different
proposal?

Regards,

Anita




>
>     On 24.04.2021 04:24, Etienne Trimaille wrote:
>>     Thanks Anita for the report.
>>
>>     I agree with Tim.
>>     Just looking at the history of
>>     https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/34018
>>     <https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/34018> and all tickets
>>     linked to this one, it would be nice to improve the situation there.
>>     I guess a lot of people don't know this trick on MacOS and don't
>>     report it on GitHub as well.
>>
>>     Regards
>>
>>     Le sam. 24 avr. 2021 à 07:03, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com
>>     <mailto:tim at kartoza.com>> a écrit :
>>
>>         Thanks for putting this together Anita!
>>
>>         I haven'treviewedany formulas, probably a better job for
>>         Marco and Andreas, but looking at the results, I would like
>>         to say that in my mind QEP#218 Notarizing QGIS for macOS is
>>         not really something that should need a grant to be funded.
>>         Not having notarisation is like having a web site in 2021
>>         without SSL - we just should not be doing that. Can I propose
>>         that we look into funding this regardless of grant funding
>>         availability?
>>
>>         Regards
>>
>>         Tim
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 6:30 PM Anita Graser
>>         <anitagraser at gmx.at <mailto:anitagraser at gmx.at>> wrote:
>>
>>             Dear PSC members,
>>
>>             Voting has closed now. You can find the voting responses
>>             here:
>>
>>             https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1khDRDElKTnB6e_p_ptUz4-4735RCOa7UZfh3hEsQrjI/edit?usp=sharing
>>             <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1khDRDElKTnB6e_p_ptUz4-4735RCOa7UZfh3hEsQrjI/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>             I received one change request via email that is reflected
>>             in the second
>>             sheet.
>>
>>             I've also spotted one issue of two votes cast by the same
>>             country user
>>             group representative. I've fixed that in the second sheet
>>             as well.
>>
>>             The third sheet follows the process as outlined in our
>>             grant programme
>>             process document:
>>
>>             The calculation of votes is done by summing up the votes.
>>             We will then
>>             calculate the total number of points that each proposal
>>             scores and rank
>>             them accordingly.
>>
>>             Grants will be approved by working sequentially from top
>>             scoring
>>             proposal to lowest until all the funds have been
>>             allocated. If the top
>>             candidates do not exactly coincide with the total grant
>>             budget, we may,
>>             depending on available funds, ‘top up’ the grant budget
>>             to include the
>>             next-in-line proposal and use up all of the available funds.
>>
>>             The computed results should be reviewed and confirmed by
>>             at least two
>>             PSC members before publishing the results.
>>
>>             So please have a look and review my results.
>>
>>             Regards,
>>
>>             Anita
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             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
>>             <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         Tim Sutton
>>         Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out
>>         about open source:
>>          * Desktop GIS programming services
>>          * Geospatial web development
>>         * GIS Training
>>         * Consulting Services
>>         Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
>>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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
>>         <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc>
>
>
>
> --
> Alessandro Pasotti
> QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net <https://www.qcooperative.net>
> ItOpen: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20210425/a2c1211a/attachment-0001.html>