[Qgis-psc] Finalizing the budget

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Hi Régis,
indeed a very good point. I totally agree with you on the idea, I just
think the formulation could be improved a bit and made a bit "harder"
maybe:

*Thank you for submitting this proposal. QGIS.org is a non-profit
organization that relies on donations and membership fees to fund part of
the code reviews and bug fixing efforts. Much of this work is done
voluntarily by project maintainers.*


*If your company reaps financial benefits or substantial savings on license
fees through the use of QGIS, we strongly recommend considering supporting
of the QGIS project
<https://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/sustaining_members/sustaining_members.html>.
Additionally, directly hiring a QGIS core developer greatly accelerates the
review process.*

*Community members, we warmly welcome your proposed code changes. We commit
to reviewing your proposals diligently, although at times we may face an
overwhelming volume of submissions.*

what do you think?

Cheers Marco

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:27, Régis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC <
qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would go in favor of a fixed budget too, because when things are not
> fixed in advance, I saw in my previous work how customer's projects tend to
> take over long term tasks, even if they are funded.
>
> A fixed budget helps clarifying plannings. That's however not the magical
> solution.
>
> One point that came to my mind, looking at the pull requests : Should we
> treat code review of community work the same way as enterprise funded work?
>
> My point is that review costs should be included in commercial activities
> and not relying on QGIS's community donations to fullfill the QA process.
>
> Community's work however, which is the best way to welcome new long term
> contributors, should not lack behind because all dev's have a lot of
> commercial contracts or need to focus on family / house building  sometimes
>
> I feel this is the current situation, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> That said being able to tell if the pull request is originated by
> volunteers or not, is a gray zone. When it comes to contract within the
> network of our friendly commercial companies, developers know themselves
> enough to be able to tell.
>
> When it is a case like, let's say Amazon's PR, it is easy to tell also.
>
> But what about new contributors investing in the own efforts, still
> working in a big company or local authority ? I am afraid this is a grey
> zone we never will be able to clarify formally and we maybe should use
> nudging more than strict rules there.
>
> What about modifying the current pull request template from
>
> *' Reviewing is a process done by project maintainers, mostly on a
> volunteer basis. We try to keep the overhead as small as possible and
> appreciate if you help us to do so by checking the following list. [..] "*
>
> to
>
> *"** Thanks a lot for submitting this proposal ! **QGIS.org is a non
> profit organization that uses donations a membership fees to fund part of
> the code reviews and bug fixing efforts. A lot of this effort is done on a
> volunteer basis by project maintainenrs.*
>
>
> * If your company is making profits, or saving lots of licence fees using
> QGIS, sponsoring QGIS's project and hiring directly a QGIS core developer
> can help a lot in speeding up the review process. *
>
> *Community members, you're more than welcome to propose code changes,
> we're doing our best to review you're proposal, but we are sometimes a bit
> flooded :) "*
>
>
> Regards
>
> Régis
>
>
>
> On 13/12/2023 09:00, Alessandro Pasotti via QGIS-PSC wrote:
>
> I would really like to hear what other core devs think about this proposal
> though, I only spoke with a few of them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>


-- 
Marco Bernasocchi

QGIS.org Chair
OPENGIS.ch CEO
http://berna.io
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20231219/def3ed9e/attachment.htm>