From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 13:21:32 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 07:21:32 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? Message-ID: Hi list, I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? I've personally got a few features I'd like to squeeze in for 4.0, but aside from that, we have a huge number of feature PRs still needing review (or a lot of work). I'm anticipating that many more will be opened next week too, given the number of feature QEPs we've seen + features I know others are actively working on for 4.0. Thanks for the consideration! Nyall From denis.rouzaud at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 07:16:34 2026 From: denis.rouzaud at gmail.com (Denis Rouzaud) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:16:34 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Nyall, hi all, For what it's worth, It's okay for me :) But I would recommend decoupling the submission from the merge deadlines. We've partially done that in the past with the "Freeze exempt" tag, but I would make it a de facto standard to reduce the pressure on reviewers and avoid pressing merges. So anything that is somehow in a ready state in a week should automatically gets 2 more weeks to get merged? Sorry, if this is already the case, but I couldn't find any trace of these rules. A place for a new QEP maybe. Happy New Feature Freeze :) Denis Le jeu. 8 janv. 2026 ? 22:21, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : > Hi list, > > I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > > I've personally got a few features I'd like to squeeze in for 4.0, but > aside from that, we have a huge number of feature PRs still needing > review (or a lot of work). I'm anticipating that many more will be > opened next week too, given the number of feature QEPs we've seen + > features I know others are actively working on for 4.0. > > Thanks for the consideration! > Nyall > _______________________________________________ > 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: From saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk Mon Jan 12 04:14:57 2026 From: saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk (Saber Razmjooei) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:14:57 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source Message-ID: Dear PSC, EU has published a Call for Evidence and invited companies, public sectors and open source communities (including individual contributors and foundations) to submit their responses: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=intcom%3AAres%282026%2969111 I am happy to (help) draft a response on behalf of QGIS.org if you would like to respond. Kind regards Saber -- Saber Razmjooei Co-Founder lutraconsulting.co.uk [image: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saber-razmjooei/] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Mon Jan 12 12:22:03 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 06:22:03 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 at 01:16, Denis Rouzaud wrote: > > Hi Nyall, hi all, > > For what it's worth, It's okay for me :) > > But I would recommend decoupling the submission from the merge deadlines. > We've partially done that in the past with the "Freeze exempt" tag, but I would make it a de facto standard to reduce the pressure on reviewers and avoid pressing merges. > So anything that is somehow in a ready state in a week should automatically gets 2 more weeks to get merged? +1, however I do have a reservation in that this has tended to lend itself to a flood of very rough draft last minute PRs being submitted on the days just before freeze. In any case, I'm asking here for an additional 1.5 weeks BEFORE the usual freeze rules / exemptions kick in. > > Sorry, if this is already the case, but I couldn't find any trace of these rules. A place for a new QEP maybe. Right -- we definitely do need to document these policies somewhere. Maybe I'll try for that during freeze ;) Nyall > > Happy New Feature Freeze :) > > Denis > > Le jeu. 8 janv. 2026 ? 22:21, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC a ?crit : >> >> Hi list, >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> >> I've personally got a few features I'd like to squeeze in for 4.0, but >> aside from that, we have a huge number of feature PRs still needing >> review (or a lot of work). I'm anticipating that many more will be >> opened next week too, given the number of feature QEPs we've seen + >> features I know others are actively working on for 4.0. >> >> Thanks for the consideration! >> Nyall >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-PSC mailing list >> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc From wonder.sk at gmail.com Tue Jan 13 07:23:37 2026 From: wonder.sk at gmail.com (Martin Dobias) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:23:37 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > > +1 from me. I also quite like the idea from Denis to have some basic rules about PRs landing shortly before feature freeze... Cheers Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From voting at qgis.org Tue Jan 13 16:41:44 2026 From: voting at qgis.org (Voting Officer) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:41:44 +0800 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Community Voting Members Election 2026: Schedule and Call for Nominations Message-ID: Dear QGIS Community, With the addition of the Tanzania User Group in 2025, we now have 34 country-level user groups. The QGIS Charter calls for an equal number of ?Community Voting Members? (we have 33), so we?re kicking off an election for one new voting member. This year?s election will aim to follow this schedule: - 14 Jan - 27 Jan: Call for Nominations - 28 Jan - 10 Feb: Voting - 11 -13 Feb: Tally votes & verification of results - 14 Feb: Announce results **Call for Nominations** We invite nominations for one Community Voting Member. Any active QGIS community member is eligible to be nominated. Only QGIS Committers (?any person who has been granted commit access in any of the official QGIS repositories?) are eligible to make nominations. This includes committers to any QGIS Git repository or Transifex project. Before making a nomination, please confirm you?re eligible, and check with the person you?re nominating to make sure they are willing. You can submit your nominations until **23:59 UTC on 27 January 2026** here: https://forms.gle/hQdQq1hSMRVHHQWQA If you play an organisational role (e.g. documentation lead, translation lead), kindly forward this email to your committers to ensure broad participation. For further details, visit the QGIS community organisation page . If you have any questions about the process, please don?t hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your continued engagement! Cheers John Bryant QGIS Voting Officer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tim at kartoza.com Wed Jan 14 03:52:12 2026 From: tim at kartoza.com (Tim Sutton) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:52:12 +0000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Request for QGIS User Group Website Branch and Subdomain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Thank you so much for your email. I am adding the PSC into cc for their info. For your request to create and host india.qgis.org, we are very happy to support this. Since you are the first such domain to be created in this way, we would like to ask you to help us to develop the template in a way that future user groups wishing to do the same can benifit from your work. https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-User-Group-Website?tab=readme-ov-file Lova will provide you with any technical support you need in terms of getting your subdomain built in CI and deployed etc. Please feel free to reach out to us if you need any help. Regards Tim On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:15?AM Lova Andriarimalala wrote: > Dear Deepak Kumar, > > Thank you for your email, and apologies for the late reply. > > We will review your request and respond to you probably in the next few > weeks, as Tim is currently on leave. > Thanks for your patience. > > Best Regards, > > Lova Andriarimalala > > > *QGIS Full Stack Developer * > *T *: +27(0) 87 809 2702 *E *: lova at kartoza.com *W* : > kartoza.com > > > > *This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you * > *have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying* > *of the contents is prohibited.* > > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 23:10, Deepak Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear QGIS Website Team, >> >> I hope this message finds you well. >> >> I am writing to request the creation of a dedicated website branch and >> subdomain for our QGIS User Group. >> >> Please find the required details below: >> >> *User Group Name:* QGIS India >> *Country/Region:* India >> *Preferred Subdomain:* india.qgis.org >> >> *Contact Person:* >> >> - >> >> Name: Deepak Kumar >> GitHub Username: @itskrdeepak >> >> I kindly request your support for the following steps: >> >> 1. >> >> Creation of a dedicated branch for our user group >> 2. >> >> Setting up appropriate branch protection rules >> 3. >> >> Granting write permissions >> 4. >> >> Configuration of GitHub Actions for automated deployment of the user >> group website >> >> Please let me know if any additional information or actions are required >> from my side. >> >> Thank you very much for your continued support of the QGIS community. I >> look forward to your guidance on the next steps. >> >> Warm regards, >> Deepak Kumar >> >> Disclaimer:- This footer text is to convey that this email is sent by >> one of the users of IITH. So, do not mark it as SPAM. >> > -- Tim Sutton *Kartoza Cofounder*Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee *T *: +27(0) 87 809 2702 *E *: tim at kartoza.com *W* : kartoza.com *This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you * *have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying* *of the contents is prohibited.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 18:50:02 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:50:02 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: > > Hi all > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> > > +1 from me. So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? Nyall From andreas at qgis.org Wed Jan 14 22:00:11 2026 From: andreas at qgis.org (Andreas Neumann) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:00:11 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) Andreas On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < > qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > >> > > > > +1 from me. > > So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? > > Nyall > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -- -- Andreas Neumann QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias at opengis.ch Wed Jan 14 22:34:43 2026 From: matthias at opengis.ch (Matthias Kuhn) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 07:34:43 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, +1 from me too For the record: this only affects feature freeze, the release date stays unchanged? Matthias On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 7:00?AM Andreas Neumann via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) > > Andreas > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < > qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: >> > >> > Hi all >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> >> >> > >> > +1 from me. >> >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >> >> Nyall >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > > > -- > > -- > Andreas Neumann > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 22:37:09 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:37:09 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) Perfect, thanks Andreas! Nyall > > Andreas > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: >> > >> > Hi all >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> >> >> > >> > +1 from me. >> >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >> >> Nyall >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > -- > > -- > Andreas Neumann > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) From uclaros at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 23:01:18 2026 From: uclaros at gmail.com (Stefanos Natsis) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:01:18 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich release. Best Stefanos On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) > > Perfect, thanks Andreas! > > Nyall > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < > qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi all > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < > qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > >> >> > >> > > >> > +1 from me. > >> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? > >> > >> Nyall > >> _______________________________________________ > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > Andreas Neumann > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julien.cabieces at oslandia.com Wed Jan 14 23:43:27 2026 From: julien.cabieces at oslandia.com (Julien Cabieces) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:43:27 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: (Stefanos Natsis via's message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:01:18 +0200") References: Message-ID: <877btjwcbk.fsf@julienlaptop.home> Hi all, +1 also, but I share Stefanos concerns. Would it be better to delay the release ? Regards, Julien > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich > release. > > Best > Stefanos > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) > > Perfect, thanks Andreas! > > Nyall > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi all > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > >> >> > >> > > >> > +1 from me. > >> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? > >> > >> Nyall > >> _______________________________________________ > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > Andreas Neumann > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc -- Julien Cabieces Senior Developer at Oslandia julien.cabieces at oslandia.com From a.neumann at carto.net Thu Jan 15 01:30:46 2026 From: a.neumann at carto.net (Andreas Neumann) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:30:46 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> Hi all, Regarding testing/bugfixing. I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x can mature further. Andreas On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow > compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich > release. > > Best > Stefanos > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer > wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >> >> Perfect, thanks Andreas! >> >> Nyall >> >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze >>>>>> date >>>>>> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 from me. >>>> >>>> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >>>> >>>> Nyall >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> Andreas Neumann >>> QGIS.ORG [1] board member (treasurer) >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc Links: ------ [1] http://QGIS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 16:49:16 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:49:16 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > Hi all, > > Regarding testing/bugfixing. > > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x can mature further. Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. (I just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) Nyall > > Andreas > > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: > > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich release. > > Best > Stefanos > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) > > Perfect, thanks Andreas! > > Nyall > > > > > Andreas > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi all > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? > >> >> > >> > > >> > +1 from me. > >> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? > >> > >> Nyall > >> _______________________________________________ > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > Andreas Neumann > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From regis.haubourg at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 23:31:40 2026 From: regis.haubourg at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9gis_Haubourg?=) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:31:40 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> Message-ID: <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal whenever they ... want or users ask. Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. Regis Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC a ?crit?: >On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Regarding testing/bugfixing. >> >> I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the >idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >can mature further. > >Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. (I >just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) > >Nyall > >> >> Andreas >> >> On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> >> I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >release. >> >> Best >> Stefanos >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: >> > >> > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >> >> Perfect, thanks Andreas! >> >> Nyall >> >> > >> > Andreas >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi all >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze date >> >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > +1 from me. >> >> >> >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >> >> >> >> Nyall >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > -- >> > Andreas Neumann >> > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From uclaros at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 23:46:31 2026 From: uclaros at gmail.com (Stefanos Natsis) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 09:46:31 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought since 3.20 all .0 versions are marked as "release candidate" Stefanos On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:31, R?gis Haubourg wrote: > Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal whenever > they ... want or users ask. > > Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package > names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. > Regis > > > Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < > qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : > >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Regarding testing/bugfixing. >> > >> > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the >> idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >> wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >> can mature further. >> >> Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. (I >> just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >> profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) >> >> Nyall >> >> > >> > Andreas >> > >> > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> > >> > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >> compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >> release. >> > >> > Best >> > Stefanos >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >> > >> > Perfect, thanks Andreas! >> > >> > Nyall >> > >> > > >> > > Andreas >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi all >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze >> date >> > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > +1 from me. >> > >> >> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >> > >> >> > >> Nyall >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Andreas Neumann >> > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >> > _______________________________________________ >> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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: From andreas at qgis.org Thu Jan 15 23:55:14 2026 From: andreas at qgis.org (Andreas Neumann) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:55:14 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 08:46, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-Developer < qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > I thought since 3.20 all .0 versions are marked as "release candidate" > Yes, but the release candidate label would, under normal circumstances, be removed with the release of 4.0.1 (due on March 20). Whereas my suggestion is to keep the "release candidate" label until 4.2.1 is released (July 17). Andreas > > Stefanos > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:31, R?gis Haubourg > wrote: > >> Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal whenever >> they ... want or users ask. >> >> Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package >> names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. >> Regis >> >> >> Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Regarding testing/bugfixing. >>> > >>> > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the >>> idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >>> wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >>> can mature further. >>> >>> Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. (I >>> just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >>> profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) >>> >>> Nyall >>> >>> > >>> > Andreas >>> > >>> > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >>> compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >>> release. >>> > >>> > Best >>> > Stefanos >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >>> > >>> > Perfect, thanks Andreas! >>> > >>> > Nyall >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Andreas >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >>> wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Hi all >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze >>> date >>> > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >>> > >> >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > +1 from me. >>> > >> >>> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >>> > >> >>> > >> Nyall >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>> > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>> > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > >> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Andreas Neumann >>> > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >>> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > QGIS-PSC mailing list >>> > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >>> > >>> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -- -- Andreas Neumann QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nyall.dawson at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 23:55:37 2026 From: nyall.dawson at gmail.com (Nyall Dawson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:55:37 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Jan 2026, 5:46?pm Stefanos Natsis, wrote: > I thought since 3.20 all .0 versions are marked as "release candidate" > Yeah but this would be marking ALL 4.0.x releases as beta, not just 4.0.0 Nyall > Stefanos > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:31, R?gis Haubourg > wrote: > >> Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal whenever >> they ... want or users ask. >> >> Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package >> names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. >> Regis >> >> >> Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > Regarding testing/bugfixing. >>> > >>> > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have the >>> idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >>> wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >>> can mature further. >>> >>> Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. (I >>> just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >>> profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) >>> >>> Nyall >>> >>> > >>> > Andreas >>> > >>> > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >>> compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >>> release. >>> > >>> > Best >>> > Stefanos >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >>> > >>> > Perfect, thanks Andreas! >>> > >>> > Nyall >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Andreas >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >>> wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Hi all >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze >>> date >>> > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >>> > >> >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > +1 from me. >>> > >> >>> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >>> > >> >>> > >> Nyall >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>> > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>> > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > >> Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Andreas Neumann >>> > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >>> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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: From uclaros at gmail.com Fri Jan 16 02:10:31 2026 From: uclaros at gmail.com (Stefanos Natsis) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 12:10:31 +0200 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Aha, thanks for clarifying that! I'd be +1 for extending the "release candidate" status to more patch releases. We could reconsider its removal before each patch release of the 4.0. cycle, though, based on the current state at the time. Stefanos On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:55, Nyall Dawson wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026, 5:46?pm Stefanos Natsis, wrote: > >> I thought since 3.20 all .0 versions are marked as "release candidate" >> > > Yeah but this would be marking ALL 4.0.x releases as beta, not just 4.0.0 > > Nyall > > >> Stefanos >> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:31, R?gis Haubourg >> wrote: >> >>> Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal whenever >>> they ... want or users ask. >>> >>> Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package >>> names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. >>> Regis >>> >>> >>> Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > Regarding testing/bugfixing. >>>> > >>>> > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have >>>> the idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >>>> wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >>>> can mature further. >>>> >>>> Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. >>>> (I just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >>>> profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) >>>> >>>> Nyall >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Andreas >>>> > >>>> > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >>>> compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >>>> release. >>>> > >>>> > Best >>>> > Stefanos >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >>>> > >>>> > Perfect, thanks Andreas! >>>> > >>>> > Nyall >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > Andreas >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Hi all >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature freeze >>>> date >>>> > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > +1 from me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Nyall >>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>> > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>>> > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> > >> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Andreas Neumann >>>> > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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: From michael at opengis.ch Mon Jan 19 03:12:31 2026 From: michael at opengis.ch (Michael Schmuki) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:12:31 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] QEP Follow-up Report: Adopt wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS Message-ID: Dear PSC This email serves as the follow-up report for the "Adopt wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS" QEP. The implementation phase took place between December 2025 and the first half of January 2026. Many thanks to Matthias for his contribution to the quest to bring QGIS to the browser and for carrying out most of the work. An update will be posted to the developers list once qgis-js 4.0.0 is officially released on npm. And I would love to give an update of the project in Laax. Thanks for supporting this QEP through the grant program. -- Original QEP Date: 2025/03/10 Author: Michael Schmuki (@boardend, michael at opengis dot ch) Follow-up Date: 2026/01/19 Status - Approved: April 28, 2025 - Discussion: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/335 Deliverables - Integration of qgis-js patches into main QGIS repository: Done - Adopting wasm32-emscripten as a build target in CMake/vcpkg: Done - CI test on Github Actions for Emscripten compatibility: Done - New major version of qgis-js based on QGIS 3.44/4.0: In Progress Upstream Changes All patches required for WebAssembly support have been merged into the QGIS repository (tracking issue: https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/issues/39): - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64075 - Make it optional to build with EXIV2 (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64109 - Add WITH_AUTH (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-04) - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64114 - Allow compiling when Qt is built without the timezone feature (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-06) - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64175 - Add missing includes (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-04) - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64188 - More optional deps - Qt Positioning, PDAL (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-08) - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64386 - Make core build with Emscripten for WASM (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-01) - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49039 - [qtkeychain] fix emscripten build (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-22) - https://github.com/frankosterfeld/qtkeychain/pull/286 - Fix build with emscripten (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-06) - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/48489 - [libpq] explicitly disable emscripten support (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) Pending (not yet merged): - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64469 - WASM fixes and qgis_bench tests for browser & Node.js (@boardend, open) - https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54 - Update to QGIS 4.0 (@boardend, open (further testing ongoing)) - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49429 - [qtbase] Fix qt.toolchain.cmake corruption for Emscripten builds (@boardend, open) - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49339 - [qtbase] Add new feature wasm-exceptions (@m-kuhn, closed) Summary of Changes - Emscripten build support - Complete integration including CI workflow, vcpkg configuration, and toolchain support - Optional authentication subsystem (WITH_AUTH) - Makes QCA dependency optional with stub implementations when disabled - Optional EXIV2 dependency (WITH_EXIV2) - EXIV2 is unavailable for Emscripten due to missing inih library support in vcpkg - Optional Qt Positioning and PDAL (WITH_QTPOSITIONING, WITH_PDAL) - More granular control over dependencies - Qt timezone compatibility - Allows compilation when Qt is built without timezone support (common in WASM builds) - Missing includes - Fixed header includes required for WASM compilation Outcome - QGIS now officially supports the wasm32-emscripten build target - All qgis-js patches have been upstreamed - qgis-js no longer requires any QGIS patches. This allows for easier creation of new qgis-js version in coordination with new QGIS versions. - GitHub Actions CI ensures ongoing Emscripten compatibility - Foundation laid for future WebAssembly-based QGIS applications - Collaboration with upstream (dependency packages) in order to improve the ecosystem and create sustainable fixes Next Steps - Release new major version 4 of qgis-js based on upstream QGIS, time aligned with QGIS 4.0.0 in February 26 (currently tracked in https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54) - Explore expanded API surface for qgis-js - Community exploration of additional WASM possibilities (QGIS Processing, PyQGIS in browser, QgsQuick port) Funding The resources allocated through the QGIS Grant 2025 have been fully utilized. Development will continue, though the pace may vary depending on available funding. This is still early-stage work - laying the foundation and solving the initial challenges required to bring QGIS to the browser. -- Michael Schmuki Full-Stack Developer Team QGIS & Industry Solutions michael at opengis.ch opengis.ch From tim at kartoza.com Mon Jan 19 05:16:27 2026 From: tim at kartoza.com (Tim Sutton) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:16:27 +0000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] QEP Follow-up Report: Adopt wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks so much for this Michael! I think this also paves the way for us to start introducing demonstrator projects into QGIS.org so that we can better showcase QGIS cartography. I have asked Lova to start looking into creating some initial prototypes. Regards Tim On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:12?AM Michael Schmuki via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Dear PSC > > This email serves as the follow-up report for the "Adopt > wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS" QEP. The implementation > phase took place between December 2025 and the first half of January > 2026. Many thanks to Matthias for his contribution to the quest to > bring QGIS to the browser and for carrying out most of the work. > > An update will be posted to the developers list once qgis-js 4.0.0 is > officially released on npm. And I would love to give an update of the > project in Laax. > > Thanks for supporting this QEP through the grant program. > > -- > > Original QEP Date: 2025/03/10 > Author: Michael Schmuki (@boardend, michael at opengis dot ch) > Follow-up Date: 2026/01/19 > > Status > - Approved: April 28, 2025 > - Discussion: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/335 > > Deliverables > - Integration of qgis-js patches into main QGIS repository: Done > - Adopting wasm32-emscripten as a build target in CMake/vcpkg: Done > - CI test on Github Actions for Emscripten compatibility: Done > - New major version of qgis-js based on QGIS 3.44/4.0: In Progress > > Upstream Changes > All patches required for WebAssembly support have been merged into the > QGIS repository (tracking issue: > https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/issues/39): > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64075 - Make it optional to build > with EXIV2 (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64109 - Add WITH_AUTH (@m-kuhn, > merged 2025-12-04) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64114 - Allow compiling when Qt is > built without the timezone feature (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-06) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64175 - Add missing includes > (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-04) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64188 - More optional deps - Qt > Positioning, PDAL (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-08) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64386 - Make core build with > Emscripten for WASM (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-01) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49039 - [qtkeychain] fix > emscripten build (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-22) > - https://github.com/frankosterfeld/qtkeychain/pull/286 - Fix build > with emscripten (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-06) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/48489 - [libpq] explicitly > disable emscripten support (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) > > Pending (not yet merged): > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64469 - WASM fixes and qgis_bench > tests for browser & Node.js (@boardend, open) > - https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54 - Update to QGIS 4.0 > (@boardend, open (further testing ongoing)) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49429 - [qtbase] Fix > qt.toolchain.cmake corruption for Emscripten builds (@boardend, open) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49339 - [qtbase] Add new > feature wasm-exceptions (@m-kuhn, closed) > > Summary of Changes > - Emscripten build support - Complete integration including CI > workflow, vcpkg configuration, and toolchain support > - Optional authentication subsystem (WITH_AUTH) - Makes QCA dependency > optional with stub implementations when disabled > - Optional EXIV2 dependency (WITH_EXIV2) - EXIV2 is unavailable for > Emscripten due to missing inih library support in vcpkg > - Optional Qt Positioning and PDAL (WITH_QTPOSITIONING, WITH_PDAL) - > More granular control over dependencies > - Qt timezone compatibility - Allows compilation when Qt is built > without timezone support (common in WASM builds) > - Missing includes - Fixed header includes required for WASM compilation > > Outcome > - QGIS now officially supports the wasm32-emscripten build target > - All qgis-js patches have been upstreamed - qgis-js no longer > requires any QGIS patches. This allows for easier creation of new > qgis-js version in coordination with new QGIS versions. > - GitHub Actions CI ensures ongoing Emscripten compatibility > - Foundation laid for future WebAssembly-based QGIS applications > - Collaboration with upstream (dependency packages) in order to > improve the ecosystem and create sustainable fixes > > Next Steps > - Release new major version 4 of qgis-js based on upstream QGIS, time > aligned with QGIS 4.0.0 in February 26 (currently tracked in > https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54) > - Explore expanded API surface for qgis-js > - Community exploration of additional WASM possibilities (QGIS > Processing, PyQGIS in browser, QgsQuick port) > > Funding > The resources allocated through the QGIS Grant 2025 have been fully > utilized. Development will continue, though the pace may vary > depending on available funding. > This is still early-stage work - laying the foundation and solving the > initial challenges required to bring QGIS to the browser. > > -- > > Michael Schmuki > > Full-Stack Developer > Team QGIS & Industry Solutions > > michael at opengis.ch > opengis.ch > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc > -- Tim Sutton *Kartoza Cofounder*Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee *T *: +27(0) 87 809 2702 *E *: tim at kartoza.com *W* : kartoza.com *This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you * *have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying* *of the contents is prohibited.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wonder.sk at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 08:25:56 2026 From: wonder.sk at gmail.com (Martin Dobias) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:25:56 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] QEP Follow-up Report: Adopt wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi there Great work, thanks Michael & Matthias! Cheers Martin On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:12?PM Michael Schmuki via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Dear PSC > > This email serves as the follow-up report for the "Adopt > wasm32-emscripten as a build target for QGIS" QEP. The implementation > phase took place between December 2025 and the first half of January > 2026. Many thanks to Matthias for his contribution to the quest to > bring QGIS to the browser and for carrying out most of the work. > > An update will be posted to the developers list once qgis-js 4.0.0 is > officially released on npm. And I would love to give an update of the > project in Laax. > > Thanks for supporting this QEP through the grant program. > > -- > > Original QEP Date: 2025/03/10 > Author: Michael Schmuki (@boardend, michael at opengis dot ch) > Follow-up Date: 2026/01/19 > > Status > - Approved: April 28, 2025 > - Discussion: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/pull/335 > > Deliverables > - Integration of qgis-js patches into main QGIS repository: Done > - Adopting wasm32-emscripten as a build target in CMake/vcpkg: Done > - CI test on Github Actions for Emscripten compatibility: Done > - New major version of qgis-js based on QGIS 3.44/4.0: In Progress > > Upstream Changes > All patches required for WebAssembly support have been merged into the > QGIS repository (tracking issue: > https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/issues/39): > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64075 - Make it optional to build > with EXIV2 (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64109 - Add WITH_AUTH (@m-kuhn, > merged 2025-12-04) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64114 - Allow compiling when Qt is > built without the timezone feature (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-06) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64175 - Add missing includes > (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-04) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64188 - More optional deps - Qt > Positioning, PDAL (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-08) > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64386 - Make core build with > Emscripten for WASM (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-01) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49039 - [qtkeychain] fix > emscripten build (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-12-22) > - https://github.com/frankosterfeld/qtkeychain/pull/286 - Fix build > with emscripten (@m-kuhn, merged 2026-01-06) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/48489 - [libpq] explicitly > disable emscripten support (@m-kuhn, merged 2025-11-27) > > Pending (not yet merged): > - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/64469 - WASM fixes and qgis_bench > tests for browser & Node.js (@boardend, open) > - https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54 - Update to QGIS 4.0 > (@boardend, open (further testing ongoing)) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49429 - [qtbase] Fix > qt.toolchain.cmake corruption for Emscripten builds (@boardend, open) > - https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/49339 - [qtbase] Add new > feature wasm-exceptions (@m-kuhn, closed) > > Summary of Changes > - Emscripten build support - Complete integration including CI > workflow, vcpkg configuration, and toolchain support > - Optional authentication subsystem (WITH_AUTH) - Makes QCA dependency > optional with stub implementations when disabled > - Optional EXIV2 dependency (WITH_EXIV2) - EXIV2 is unavailable for > Emscripten due to missing inih library support in vcpkg > - Optional Qt Positioning and PDAL (WITH_QTPOSITIONING, WITH_PDAL) - > More granular control over dependencies > - Qt timezone compatibility - Allows compilation when Qt is built > without timezone support (common in WASM builds) > - Missing includes - Fixed header includes required for WASM compilation > > Outcome > - QGIS now officially supports the wasm32-emscripten build target > - All qgis-js patches have been upstreamed - qgis-js no longer > requires any QGIS patches. This allows for easier creation of new > qgis-js version in coordination with new QGIS versions. > - GitHub Actions CI ensures ongoing Emscripten compatibility > - Foundation laid for future WebAssembly-based QGIS applications > - Collaboration with upstream (dependency packages) in order to > improve the ecosystem and create sustainable fixes > > Next Steps > - Release new major version 4 of qgis-js based on upstream QGIS, time > aligned with QGIS 4.0.0 in February 26 (currently tracked in > https://github.com/qgis/qgis-js/pull/54) > - Explore expanded API surface for qgis-js > - Community exploration of additional WASM possibilities (QGIS > Processing, PyQGIS in browser, QgsQuick port) > > Funding > The resources allocated through the QGIS Grant 2025 have been fully > utilized. Development will continue, though the pace may vary > depending on available funding. > This is still early-stage work - laying the foundation and solving the > initial challenges required to bring QGIS to the browser. > > -- > > Michael Schmuki > > Full-Stack Developer > Team QGIS & Industry Solutions > > michael at opengis.ch > opengis.ch > _______________________________________________ > 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: From valentin.buira at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 20:20:38 2026 From: valentin.buira at gmail.com (Valentin Buira) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 05:20:38 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source Message-ID: Hi Saber Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an individual. Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, and in the end on the life of people *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the QGIS project worldwide. And it could also help to deter side effects of this future regulation. What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden as the Cyber Resilience Act(CRA) P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's getting closer. [1] P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user group with potential perks for the EU [2] Cheers, Valentin [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andreas at qgis.org Tue Jan 20 23:49:50 2026 From: andreas at qgis.org (Andreas Neumann) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:49:50 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes - I agree it is important. It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the US government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is probably of quite some importance. PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. Andreas On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi Saber > > Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an > individual. > > Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from the > way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit even) > that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. > > QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, and > in the end on the life of people > > *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, > this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the > QGIS project worldwide. > > And it could also help to deter side effects of this future regulation. > What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden as the Cyber > Resilience Act(CRA) > > P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's > getting closer. [1] > > P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user group > with potential perks for the EU [2] > > Cheers, > Valentin > > [1] > https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en > [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc > -- -- Andreas Neumann QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From regis.haubourg at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 03:10:30 2026 From: regis.haubourg at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9gis_Haubourg?=) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:10:30 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically improved with european public policies regarding our project. From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor in a company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I see these bottlenecks : - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT departement, or even public market try to fit open source business into the mold of closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive that forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open source service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of contracts. And allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source moves fast. - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a lot more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for our own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, and only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation.? ?The CRA open source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers will still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations.? The real political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with one majors strong public funded instance. -? Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term strategy based on open source and commons : https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me Europe should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, publicly funded. - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? Best regards R?gis On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: > Yes - I agree it is important. > > It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the > US government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not > anymore a reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other > European software alternatives to US commercial software where Europe > is dependent on is probably of quite some importance. > > PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. > > Andreas > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC > wrote: > > Hi Saber > > Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an > individual. > > Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because > from the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious > (and explicit even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law > on open source. > > QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many > disciplines, and in the end on the life of people > > *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road > map*, this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would > benefit to the QGIS project worldwide. > > And it could also help to deter side effects of this future > regulation. What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the > same burden as the Cyber Resilience Act(CRA) > > P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so > it's getting closer. [1] > > P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS > user group with potential perks for the EU [2] > > Cheers, > Valentin > > [1] > https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en > [2] > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc > > > > -- > > -- > Andreas Neumann > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From marco at qgis.org Wed Jan 21 04:19:34 2026 From: marco at qgis.org (Marco Bernasocchi) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:19:34 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. @R?gis Haubourg you had a collaborative MD hedgehog somewhere? I could dump my toughts there. Cheers Marco Bernasocchi QGIS.org Chair OSGEO.org VP Europe OPENGIS.ch CEO http://berna.io On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi, > I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and > fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. > I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically improved > with european public policies regarding our project. > > From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor in a > company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I see > these bottlenecks : > > - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT departement, > or even public market try to fit open source business into the mold of > closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive that > forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open source > service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of contracts. And > allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source moves fast. > > - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a lot > more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for our > own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, and > only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation. The CRA open > source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers will > still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of > reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package > process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. > That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? > Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? > Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done > currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on > numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations. The real > political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( > I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical > choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . > > - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so > that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par > features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed > system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with > one majors strong public funded instance. > > - Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I > think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from > the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. > Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational > programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term > strategy based on open source and commons : > https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me Europe > should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, > publicly funded. > > - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real > interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have > shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and > set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. > > @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a > collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? > > Best regards > R?gis > > > > On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: > > Yes - I agree it is important. > > It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the US > government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a > reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software > alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is > probably of quite some importance. > > PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. > > Andreas > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < > qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> Hi Saber >> >> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an >> individual. >> >> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from >> the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit >> even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. >> >> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, and >> in the end on the life of people >> >> *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, >> this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the >> QGIS project worldwide. >> >> And it could also help to deter side effects of this future regulation. >> What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden as the Cyber >> Resilience Act(CRA) >> >> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's >> getting closer. [1] >> >> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user group >> with potential perks for the EU [2] >> >> Cheers, >> Valentin >> >> [1] >> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >> [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-PSC mailing list >> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >> > > > -- > > -- > Andreas Neumann > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing listQGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk Wed Jan 21 04:31:48 2026 From: saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk (Saber Razmjooei) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:31:48 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for your interest. I have shared with the interested parties a document for the draft response. Feel free to share further and add your comments/ideas. Kind regards Saber On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 13:19, Marco Bernasocchi via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi All, > I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. > @R?gis Haubourg you had a collaborative MD hedgehog > somewhere? > > I could dump my toughts there. > > Cheers > > Marco Bernasocchi > > QGIS.org Chair > OSGEO.org VP Europe > OPENGIS.ch CEO > http://berna.io > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, < > qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and >> fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. >> I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically improved >> with european public policies regarding our project. >> >> From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor in >> a company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I see >> these bottlenecks : >> >> - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT departement, >> or even public market try to fit open source business into the mold of >> closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive that >> forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open source >> service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of contracts. And >> allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source moves fast. >> >> - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a >> lot more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for >> our own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, >> and only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation. The CRA >> open source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers >> will still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of >> reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package >> process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. >> That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? >> Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? >> Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done >> currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on >> numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations. The real >> political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( >> I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical >> choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . >> >> - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so >> that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par >> features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed >> system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with >> one majors strong public funded instance. >> >> - Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I >> think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from >> the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. >> Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational >> programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term >> strategy based on open source and commons : >> https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me Europe >> should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, >> publicly funded. >> >> - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real >> interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have >> shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and >> set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. >> >> @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a >> collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? >> >> Best regards >> R?gis >> >> >> >> On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> >> Yes - I agree it is important. >> >> It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the US >> government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a >> reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software >> alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is >> probably of quite some importance. >> >> PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. >> >> Andreas >> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Saber >>> >>> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an >>> individual. >>> >>> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from >>> the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit >>> even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. >>> >>> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, and >>> in the end on the life of people >>> >>> *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, >>> this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the >>> QGIS project worldwide. >>> >>> And it could also help to deter side effects of this future regulation. >>> What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden as the Cyber >>> Resilience Act(CRA) >>> >>> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's >>> getting closer. [1] >>> >>> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user >>> group with potential perks for the EU [2] >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Valentin >>> >>> [1] >>> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >>> [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> QGIS-PSC mailing list >>> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> Andreas Neumann >> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-PSC mailing listQGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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 > -- Saber Razmjooei CO-Founder lutraconsulting.co.uk [image: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saber-razmjooei/] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marco at qgis.org Wed Jan 21 07:44:33 2026 From: marco at qgis.org (Marco Bernasocchi) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:44:33 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Push back feature freeze by 1/1.5 weeks? In-Reply-To: References: <95de44943cf0e9af2a871ca05b4e5f3a@carto.net> <170E1E3B-0B19-4BCA-8FB5-34F3976CA97F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes that sounds like a good plan to me too. Marco Bernasocchi QGIS.org Chair OSGEO.org VP Europe OPENGIS.ch CEO http://berna.io On Fri, 16 Jan 2026, 11:10 Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC, < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Aha, thanks for clarifying that! > I'd be +1 for extending the "release candidate" status to more patch > releases. We could reconsider its removal before each patch release of the > 4.0. cycle, though, based on the current state at the time. > > Stefanos > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:55, Nyall Dawson wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026, 5:46?pm Stefanos Natsis, wrote: >> >>> I thought since 3.20 all .0 versions are marked as "release candidate" >>> >> >> Yeah but this would be marking ALL 4.0.x releases as beta, not just 4.0.0 >> >> Nyall >> >> >>> Stefanos >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 09:31, R?gis Haubourg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, my IT department updates packages in our software portal >>>> whenever they ... want or users ask. >>>> >>>> Maybe we should explicitly name 4.0 "release candidate" in the package >>>> names and our communication if 4.0 is that broken. >>>> Regis >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 16 janvier 2026 01:49:16 GMT+01:00, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 19:30, Andreas Neumann >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > Regarding testing/bugfixing. >>>>> > >>>>> > I hope and I assume that companies and organizations wouldn't have >>>>> the idea to base their mission critical work on a .0 release ... but rather >>>>> wait for the next LT version or a couple of patch releases until QGIS 4.x >>>>> can mature further. >>>>> >>>>> Definitely -- it's not going to be anywhere NEAR enterprise ready ?. >>>>> (I just ran into the known issue where the qt6 builds can corrupt your user >>>>> profiles... someone should probably look into that one sometime!) >>>>> >>>>> Nyall >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Andreas >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2026-01-15 08:01, Stefanos Natsis via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm also +1, however I'm slightly worried that we should somehow >>>>> compensate for the reduced testing/bugfixing time of this feature-rich >>>>> release. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best >>>>> > Stefanos >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 08:37, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 16:00, Andreas Neumann >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > +1 - to have a voice from PSC ;-) >>>>> > >>>>> > Perfect, thanks Andreas! >>>>> > >>>>> > Nyall >>>>> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Andreas >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 03:50, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer < >>>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 01:23, Martin Dobias >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > Hi all >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 10:21?PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < >>>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> I'm wondering if we could possibly push back the feature >>>>> freeze date >>>>> > >> >> by 1-1.5 weeks for this cycle? >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > +1 from me. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> So do we consider this locked in now? Freeze moved to 27th Jan? >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Nyall >>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> > >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>>> > >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>>>> > >> List info: >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>>> > >> Unsubscribe: >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > Andreas Neumann >>>>> > > QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>>> > QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org >>>>> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anitagraser at gmx.at Wed Jan 21 11:53:56 2026 From: anitagraser at gmx.at (Anita Graser) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 20:53:56 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Splash for 4.0 In-Reply-To: <0d33ed5e-dd6c-402e-9c20-f367d5a32373@gmx.at> References: <0d33ed5e-dd6c-402e-9c20-f367d5a32373@gmx.at> Message-ID: Hi, I'm happy to present to you the splash screen for 4.0 Norrk?ping https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0IYBvbkHmuQv-wtwFMt5yJg76pTky3U/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dKzbkSe9_NxAHry27kMnEcKZZILzfrT3/view?usp=drive_link As always, you can find the Gimp project files in the QGIS graphics folder on Google Drive. The graphics for the Win installer are: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b1sDGv6kHoQl6dk75haq2RJ3vRCM_Cc4/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bo7MXPwDJmnOVhtAVwengRPwDhtP0ELC/view?usp=drive_link Let me know if any other installer graphics are needed. Regards, Anita -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From voting at qgis.org Thu Jan 22 19:36:55 2026 From: voting at qgis.org (Voting Officer) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:36:55 +0800 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Community Voting Members Election 2026: Schedule and Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi QGIS Community, A reminder that nominations for a new Community Voting Member close in a few days. QGIS Committers are eligible to make nominations until **23:59 UTC on 27 January 2026** and voting on the nominees will begin the following day. Cheers John On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 8:41?AM Voting Officer wrote: > Dear QGIS Community, > > With the addition of the Tanzania User Group in 2025, we now have 34 > country-level user groups. The QGIS Charter > calls for an equal number > of ?Community Voting Members? (we have 33), so we?re kicking off an > election for one new voting member. > > This year?s election will aim to follow this schedule: > > - > > 14 Jan - 27 Jan: Call for Nominations > - > > 28 Jan - 10 Feb: Voting > - > > 11 -13 Feb: Tally votes & verification of results > - > > 14 Feb: Announce results > > **Call for Nominations** > > We invite nominations for one Community Voting Member. Any active QGIS > community member is eligible to be nominated. > > Only QGIS Committers (?any person who has been granted commit access in > any of the official QGIS repositories?) are eligible to make nominations. > This includes committers to any QGIS Git repository or Transifex project. > > Before making a nomination, please confirm you?re eligible, and check with > the person you?re nominating to make sure they are willing. > > You can submit your nominations until **23:59 UTC on 27 January 2026** > here: > > https://forms.gle/hQdQq1hSMRVHHQWQA > > If you play an organisational role (e.g. documentation lead, translation > lead), kindly forward this email to your committers to ensure broad > participation. > > For further details, visit the QGIS community organisation page > . If you have any questions > about the process, please don?t hesitate to contact me. > > Thank you for your continued engagement! > > Cheers > > John Bryant > > QGIS Voting Officer > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denis.rouzaud at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 01:29:03 2026 From: denis.rouzaud at gmail.com (Denis Rouzaud) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 10:29:03 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Ownership transfer of QGIS-plugin-CI to QGIS.org Message-ID: Dear PSC, QGIS-plugin-ci (https://github.com/opengisch/qgis-plugin-ci) is a tool to package and distribute QGIS plugins. Originally created by me (OPENGIS.ch), it's actively developed and maintained by Julien Moura (Oslandia) and ?tienne Trimaille (formerly 3Liz). We would like to improve its legitimacy by transferring the ownership to QGIS.org on Github. We are still willing to maintain it actively and have a nice roadmap. Please let us know your thoughts on this. Kind regards, Denis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From regis.haubourg at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 02:21:19 2026 From: regis.haubourg at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9gis_Haubourg?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 11:21:19 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Ownership transfer of QGIS-plugin-CI to QGIS.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3935b6ca-e65e-432f-a405-ae067d39db66@gmail.com> That would be a big +1 for me, and the fact that it is already maintained by several companies match the definition of a common utility. Thanks a lot for this move On 1/26/26 10:29, Denis Rouzaud via QGIS-PSC wrote: > Dear PSC, > > QGIS-plugin-ci (https://github.com/opengisch/qgis-plugin-ci) is a tool > to package and distribute QGIS plugins. Originally created by me > (OPENGIS.ch), it's actively developed?and maintained by Julien Moura > (Oslandia) and ?tienne Trimaille (formerly 3Liz). > > We would like to improve its legitimacy by transferring?the ownership > to QGIS.org on Github. We are still willing to maintain it actively > and have a nice roadmap. > > Please let us know your thoughts?on this. > Kind regards, > > Denis > > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc From saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk Mon Jan 26 04:46:26 2026 From: saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk (Saber Razmjooei) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 13:46:26 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> References: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> Message-ID: Hi all, The deadline for submission is next week. If the PSC has prepared something, it would be good to have it published to the community before the submission. If you have not prepared a response yet, I have drafted one. Comments and suggestions are welcome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C2uODZiD7TcdHCZjNZZNDP9iy3QfG-77uXXoMwWH9Qo/edit?tab=t.0 Kind regards Saber On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 at 21:59, R?gis Haubourg wrote: > Here attached the response of the software heritage foundation, seen on > the foundation's mailing list. > They push interesting points. The form of the document is really nice to > read and summarized with a short operational recommandations. > Hope it helps > > > Le 21 janvier 2026 13:31:48 GMT+01:00, Saber Razmjooei < > saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk> a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for your interest. I have shared with the interested parties a >> document for the draft response. Feel free to share further and add your >> comments/ideas. >> >> Kind regards >> Saber >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 13:19, Marco Bernasocchi via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. >>> @R?gis Haubourg you had a collaborative MD hedgehog >>> somewhere? >>> >>> I could dump my toughts there. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Marco Bernasocchi >>> >>> QGIS.org Chair >>> OSGEO.org VP Europe >>> OPENGIS.ch CEO >>> http://berna.io >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and >>>> fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. >>>> I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically improved >>>> with european public policies regarding our project. >>>> >>>> From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor >>>> in a company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I >>>> see these bottlenecks : >>>> >>>> - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT >>>> departement, or even public market try to fit open source business into the >>>> mold of closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive >>>> that forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open >>>> source service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of >>>> contracts. And allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source >>>> moves fast. >>>> >>>> - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a >>>> lot more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for >>>> our own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, >>>> and only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation. The CRA >>>> open source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers >>>> will still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of >>>> reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package >>>> process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. >>>> That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? >>>> Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? >>>> Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done >>>> currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on >>>> numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations. The real >>>> political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( >>>> I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical >>>> choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . >>>> >>>> - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so >>>> that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par >>>> features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed >>>> system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with >>>> one majors strong public funded instance. >>>> >>>> - Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I >>>> think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from >>>> the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. >>>> Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational >>>> programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term >>>> strategy based on open source and commons : >>>> https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me >>>> Europe should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, >>>> publicly funded. >>>> >>>> - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real >>>> interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have >>>> shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and >>>> set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. >>>> >>>> @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a >>>> collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> R?gis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes - I agree it is important. >>>> >>>> It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the US >>>> government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a >>>> reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software >>>> alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is >>>> probably of quite some importance. >>>> >>>> PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < >>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Saber >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an >>>>> individual. >>>>> >>>>> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from >>>>> the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit >>>>> even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. >>>>> >>>>> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, >>>>> and in the end on the life of people >>>>> >>>>> *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, >>>>> this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the >>>>> QGIS project worldwide. >>>>> >>>>> And it could also help to deter side effects of this future >>>>> regulation. What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden >>>>> as the Cyber Resilience Act(CRA) >>>>> >>>>> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's >>>>> getting closer. [1] >>>>> >>>>> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user >>>>> group with potential perks for the EU [2] >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Valentin >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> QGIS-PSC mailing list >>>>> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andreas Neumann >>>> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> QGIS-PSC mailing listQGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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 >>> >> >> >> -- Saber Razmjooei CO-Founder lutraconsulting.co.uk [image: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saber-razmjooei/] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From regis at qgis.org Mon Jan 26 05:10:30 2026 From: regis at qgis.org (=?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9gis_Haubourg?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:10:30 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> References: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> Message-ID: <570afa68-02a4-4808-85be-f91512add119@qgis.org> Hi there, I am following the freedesktop foundations mailing list [0],? which is dedicated to collaboration between open source projects. They pushed a response to europe with many interesting points. The form of the document is really nice to read and summarized with a short operational recommandations. A copy of the response here : https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf [0]?see https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations Cheers R?gis https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf > > > Le 21 janvier 2026 13:31:48 GMT+01:00, Saber Razmjooei > a ?crit?: > > Hi all, > > Thanks for your interest. I have shared with the interested > parties a document for the draft response. Feel free to share > further and add your comments/ideas. > > Kind regards > Saber > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 13:19, Marco Bernasocchi via QGIS-PSC > wrote: > > Hi All, > I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. > @R?gis Haubourg ?you had a > collaborative MD hedgehog somewhere? > > I could dump my toughts there. > > Cheers > > Marco Bernasocchi > > QGIS.org Chair > OSGEO.org VP Europe > OPENGIS.ch CEO > http://berna.io > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, > wrote: > > Hi, > I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep > look, and fitting into European formalism is not that > easy, but worth the try. > I also think that we should debate what could be > pragmatically improved with european public policies > regarding our project. > > From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, > contributor in a company, and now benevolent in a research > institute that uses QGIS, I see these bottlenecks : > > - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many > IT departement, or even public market try to fit open > source business into the mold of closed source habits. > Europe could improve things by a directive that forces > countries to change their public market rules to allow > open source service buying for any contract. This would > secure a lot of contracts. And allow those contracts to be > more agile, because open source moves fast. > > - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, > where we are a lot more responsible of our distribution > packages than the GPL licence for our own code says.? This > increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, and only > big projects can follow the flow and our obligation.? ?The > CRA open source stewardship stuff releases the legal > pressure, but customers will still treat open source as > vendors and will expect the same level of reactivity over > disclosures. That means we need to secure our package > process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive > security strategy. That means more QGIS.org funded work in > the long run. What can Europe do? Find ways to secure the > funding of open source stewards, but how? Communication > and budget helpers can help, but it is already done > currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in > favor of a tax on numeric giants that would be funding > open source foundations.? The real political question > would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( > I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too > much on polical choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work > fast enough) . > > - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg > sufficiently so that they are strong enough to allow > project have decent CI minutes, on par features, so that > open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed > system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open > source tool, with one majors strong public funded instance. > > -? Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in > schools. I think modern centralized IT platform, and AI > move contributors away from the project. I can only see a > public educational program to mitigate this. Open source > basics, contribution basics should be pushed in > educational programs (in France, a team is doing a great > job currently with a long term strategy based on open > source and commons : > https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . > To me Europe should also launch a funded program alike the > Google Summer of Code, publicly funded. > > - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools > that block real interoperability and lock users in > companies in closed ecosystem. We have shy initiatives > around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and > set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT > audits I see. > > @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we > could share a collaborative pad to gather our notes and > ideas? > > Best regards > R?gis > > > On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: >> Yes - I agree it is important. >> >> It is pretty obvious for us (and the European >> governments), that the US government (with a lot of >> influence on the US economy) is not anymore a reliable >> partner. So I believe Open Source and other European >> software alternatives to US commercial software where >> Europe is dependent on is probably of quite some importance. >> >> PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. >> >> Andreas >> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC >> wrote: >> >> Hi Saber >> >> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my >> feedback as an individual. >> >> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for >> QGIS. Because from the way the call for evidence is >> worded, it is very obvious (and explicit even) that >> it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open >> source. >> >> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so >> many disciplines, and in the end on the life of people >> >> *If the EU is putting open source software on its >> strategic road map*, this could mean securing new >> funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the QGIS >> project worldwide. >> >> And it could also help to deter side effects of this >> future regulation. What I mean by that, it would be >> cool to avoid the same burden as the Cyber Resilience >> Act(CRA) >> >> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 >> February, so it's getting closer. [1] >> >> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a >> Europe QGIS user group with potential perks for the >> EU [2] >> >> Cheers, >> Valentin >> >> [1] >> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >> [2] >> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-PSC mailing list >> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> Andreas Neumann >> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk Mon Jan 26 05:19:15 2026 From: saber.razmjooei at lutraconsulting.co.uk (Saber Razmjooei) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 14:19:15 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: <570afa68-02a4-4808-85be-f91512add119@qgis.org> References: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> <570afa68-02a4-4808-85be-f91512add119@qgis.org> Message-ID: Hi Regis, Thanks for those examples. They are very concise and nicely worded. I think QGIS is not a generic tool and can be linked with some of the EU specific policies (e.g. EUDR, Data Spaces, Inspire) and highlight the importance of it from those aspects. The format of response can change, but first we need to gather all the ideas/comments in one place. Kind regards Saber On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 14:10, R?gis Haubourg wrote: > Hi there, > I am following the freedesktop foundations mailing list [0], which is > dedicated to collaboration between open source projects. > > They pushed a response to europe with many interesting points. The form of > the document is really nice to read and summarized with a short operational > recommandations. > > A copy of the response here : > https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf > > > [0] see https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations > > Cheers > R?gis > > https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf > > > > Le 21 janvier 2026 13:31:48 GMT+01:00, Saber Razmjooei > > a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for your interest. I have shared with the interested parties a >> document for the draft response. Feel free to share further and add your >> comments/ideas. >> >> Kind regards >> Saber >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 13:19, Marco Bernasocchi via QGIS-PSC < >> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. >>> @R?gis Haubourg you had a collaborative MD hedgehog >>> somewhere? >>> >>> I could dump my toughts there. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Marco Bernasocchi >>> >>> QGIS.org Chair >>> OSGEO.org VP Europe >>> OPENGIS.ch CEO >>> http://berna.io >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and >>>> fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. >>>> I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically improved >>>> with european public policies regarding our project. >>>> >>>> From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor >>>> in a company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I >>>> see these bottlenecks : >>>> >>>> - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT >>>> departement, or even public market try to fit open source business into the >>>> mold of closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive >>>> that forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open >>>> source service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of >>>> contracts. And allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source >>>> moves fast. >>>> >>>> - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a >>>> lot more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for >>>> our own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, >>>> and only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation. The CRA >>>> open source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers >>>> will still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of >>>> reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package >>>> process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. >>>> That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? >>>> Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? >>>> Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done >>>> currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on >>>> numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations. The real >>>> political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( >>>> I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical >>>> choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . >>>> >>>> - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so >>>> that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par >>>> features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed >>>> system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with >>>> one majors strong public funded instance. >>>> >>>> - Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I >>>> think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from >>>> the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. >>>> Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational >>>> programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term >>>> strategy based on open source and commons : >>>> https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me >>>> Europe should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, >>>> publicly funded. >>>> >>>> - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real >>>> interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have >>>> shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and >>>> set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. >>>> >>>> @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a >>>> collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> R?gis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes - I agree it is important. >>>> >>>> It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the US >>>> government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a >>>> reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software >>>> alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is >>>> probably of quite some importance. >>>> >>>> PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < >>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Saber >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an >>>>> individual. >>>>> >>>>> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because from >>>>> the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and explicit >>>>> even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open source. >>>>> >>>>> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, >>>>> and in the end on the life of people >>>>> >>>>> *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road map*, >>>>> this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit to the >>>>> QGIS project worldwide. >>>>> >>>>> And it could also help to deter side effects of this future >>>>> regulation. What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden >>>>> as the Cyber Resilience Act(CRA) >>>>> >>>>> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's >>>>> getting closer. [1] >>>>> >>>>> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user >>>>> group with potential perks for the EU [2] >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Valentin >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> QGIS-PSC mailing list >>>>> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andreas Neumann >>>> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> QGIS-PSC mailing listQGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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 >>> >> >> >> > -- Saber Razmjooei CO-Founder lutraconsulting.co.uk [image: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saber-razmjooei/] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emma at north-road.com Mon Jan 26 23:56:12 2026 From: emma at north-road.com (Emma Hain) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 17:56:12 +1000 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Call for evidence - impact of open source In-Reply-To: References: <6FF3C030-1F87-4DD8-8EBF-743817ED2C3C@qgis.org> <570afa68-02a4-4808-85be-f91512add119@qgis.org> Message-ID: Hi All Though not European, I believe this will pave the way for other reqions - here are my thoughts: 1. Australia has tax incentives for R&D . In reading the response, I see mention of grants, but no tax incentives, 2. Education is super important - adaptation in curriculum and the later Higher Education course development should be a focus on sustainability Kind regards Em On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 23:19, Saber Razmjooei via QGIS-PSC < qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi Regis, > > Thanks for those examples. They are very concise and nicely worded. > > I think QGIS is not a generic tool and can be linked with some of the EU > specific policies (e.g. EUDR, Data Spaces, Inspire) and highlight the > importance of it from those aspects. > > The format of response can change, but first we need to gather all the > ideas/comments in one place. > > Kind regards > Saber > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 14:10, R?gis Haubourg wrote: > >> Hi there, >> I am following the freedesktop foundations mailing list [0], which is >> dedicated to collaboration between open source projects. >> >> They pushed a response to europe with many interesting points. The form >> of the document is really nice to read and summarized with a short >> operational recommandations. >> >> A copy of the response here : >> https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf >> >> >> [0] see https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations >> >> Cheers >> R?gis >> >> https://nx57269.your-storageshare.de/s/XmF44Cqx96GKibf >> >> >> >> Le 21 janvier 2026 13:31:48 GMT+01:00, Saber Razmjooei >> >> a ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks for your interest. I have shared with the interested parties a >>> document for the draft response. Feel free to share further and add your >>> comments/ideas. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Saber >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 13:19, Marco Bernasocchi via QGIS-PSC < >>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I've also started reading this in detail an preparing some notes. >>>> @R?gis Haubourg you had a collaborative MD hedgehog >>>> somewhere? >>>> >>>> I could dump my toughts there. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Marco Bernasocchi >>>> >>>> QGIS.org Chair >>>> OSGEO.org VP Europe >>>> OPENGIS.ch CEO >>>> http://berna.io >>>> >>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026, 12:10 R?gis Haubourg via QGIS-PSC, < >>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I agree too that we need to raise our voices. I had a deep look, and >>>>> fitting into European formalism is not that easy, but worth the try. >>>>> I also think that we should debate what could be pragmatically >>>>> improved with european public policies regarding our project. >>>>> >>>>> From my corner, having been on the side of public funder, contributor >>>>> in a company, and now benevolent in a research institute that uses QGIS, I >>>>> see these bottlenecks : >>>>> >>>>> - The IT culture around open source is very low, and many IT >>>>> departement, or even public market try to fit open source business into the >>>>> mold of closed source habits. Europe could improve things by a directive >>>>> that forces countries to change their public market rules to allow open >>>>> source service buying for any contract. This would secure a lot of >>>>> contracts. And allow those contracts to be more agile, because open source >>>>> moves fast. >>>>> >>>>> - The cyber stuff pushes us back into a vendor pattern, where we are a >>>>> lot more responsible of our distribution packages than the GPL licence for >>>>> our own code says. This increases infra and administrative tasks a lot, >>>>> and only big projects can follow the flow and our obligation. The CRA >>>>> open source stewardship stuff releases the legal pressure, but customers >>>>> will still treat open source as vendors and will expect the same level of >>>>> reactivity over disclosures. That means we need to secure our package >>>>> process, anticipate scanner issues, have a proactive security strategy. >>>>> That means more QGIS.org funded work in the long run. What can Europe do? >>>>> Find ways to secure the funding of open source stewards, but how? >>>>> Communication and budget helpers can help, but it is already done >>>>> currently. If we are in a new IT cold war, I would be in favor of a tax on >>>>> numeric giants that would be funding open source foundations. The real >>>>> political question would then be the way this money can be redistributed ( >>>>> I'd rather let the economy find its way and not depend too much on polical >>>>> choices, but I'm afraid that doesn't work fast enough) . >>>>> >>>>> - Github centralization fears me too. Funding codeberg sufficiently so >>>>> that they are strong enough to allow project have decent CI minutes, on par >>>>> features, so that open source project can grow without paying the AI/closed >>>>> system toll in Europe would also be necessary. An open source tool, with >>>>> one majors strong public funded instance. >>>>> >>>>> - Renewing the motivation to contribute to open source in schools. I >>>>> think modern centralized IT platform, and AI move contributors away from >>>>> the project. I can only see a public educational program to mitigate this. >>>>> Open source basics, contribution basics should be pushed in educational >>>>> programs (in France, a team is doing a great job currently with a long term >>>>> strategy based on open source and commons : >>>>> https://www.education.gouv.fr/feuilles-de-route-450426 ) . To me >>>>> Europe should also launch a funded program alike the Google Summer of Code, >>>>> publicly funded. >>>>> >>>>> - Finally, Europe should push rules to forbid IT tools that block real >>>>> interoperability and lock users in companies in closed ecosystem. We have >>>>> shy initiatives around RGPD data portability. Europe should go further and >>>>> set up a "vendor locking" score, added to all the IT audits I see. >>>>> >>>>> @Saber if you take the lead to write something, maybe we could share a >>>>> collaborative pad to gather our notes and ideas? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> R?gis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/21/26 08:49, Andreas Neumann via QGIS-PSC wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes - I agree it is important. >>>>> >>>>> It is pretty obvious for us (and the European governments), that the >>>>> US government (with a lot of influence on the US economy) is not anymore a >>>>> reliable partner. So I believe Open Source and other European software >>>>> alternatives to US commercial software where Europe is dependent on is >>>>> probably of quite some importance. >>>>> >>>>> PSC will try to submit something before the deadline. >>>>> >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 05:20, Valentin Buira via QGIS-PSC < >>>>> qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Saber >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks a lot for bringing the topic, I submitted my feedback as an >>>>>> individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I strongly suggest the PSC to do so as well for QGIS. Because >>>>>> from the way the call for evidence is worded, it is very obvious (and >>>>>> explicit even) that it's preliminary work for a new a new law on open >>>>>> source. >>>>>> >>>>>> QGIS has this unique ability to trickle down on so many disciplines, >>>>>> and in the end on the life of people >>>>>> >>>>>> *If the EU is putting open source software on its strategic road >>>>>> map*, this could mean securing new funding for QGIS. And it would benefit >>>>>> to the QGIS project worldwide. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it could also help to deter side effects of this future >>>>>> regulation. What I mean by that, it would be cool to avoid the same burden >>>>>> as the Cyber Resilience Act(CRA) >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S: The deadline for submitting a feedback is on 3 February, so it's >>>>>> getting closer. [1] >>>>>> >>>>>> P.P.S: I also recently suggested the creation of a Europe QGIS user >>>>>> group with potential perks for the EU [2] >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Valentin >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16213-European-Open-Digital-Ecosystems_en >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2026-January/055990.html >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> QGIS-PSC mailing list >>>>>> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org >>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andreas Neumann >>>>> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer) >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> QGIS-PSC mailing listQGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.orghttps://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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > > Saber Razmjooei > > CO-Founder > > lutraconsulting.co.uk > > [image: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saber-razmjooei/] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From anitagraser at gmx.at Tue Jan 27 03:06:33 2026 From: anitagraser at gmx.at (Anita Graser) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 12:06:33 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Ownership transfer of QGIS-plugin-CI to QGIS.org In-Reply-To: <3935b6ca-e65e-432f-a405-ae067d39db66@gmail.com> References: <3935b6ca-e65e-432f-a405-ae067d39db66@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 from me. Thank you for the initiative. regards Anita -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From voting at qgis.org Tue Jan 27 17:51:43 2026 From: voting at qgis.org (Voting Officer) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:51:43 +0800 Subject: [Qgis-psc] Community Voting Members Election 2026: Ballot Message-ID: Dear QGIS Community, Thanks to the QGIS Committers for answering the Call for Nominations! The call has now closed, with nominations for the following QGIS community members: - Jean-Marie Arsac - Lo?c Bartoletti - Lova Andriarimalala We have one opening for the position of Community Voting Member. Eligible voters are now invited to cast their ballot. Only QGIS Committers (?any person who has been granted commit access in any of the official QGIS repositories?) are eligible to cast a ballot. This includes committers to any QGIS Git repository or Transifex project. The voting will remain open until **23:59 UTC on 10 February 2026**. You can cast your ballot here: https://forms.gle/1tAMLkatg7gfKS6V6 For further details, visit the QGIS community organisation page . If you have any questions about the process, please don?t hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your continued engagement! John Bryant QGIS Voting Officer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marco at qgis.org Thu Jan 29 05:15:00 2026 From: marco at qgis.org (Marco Bernasocchi) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:15:00 +0100 Subject: [Qgis-psc] =?utf-8?q?Budget_2026_=E2=80=93_Voting_Result?= Message-ID: Dear voting members, Dear Community The 2026 budget has been approved with the following result: - *Yes:* 32 - *No:* 0 - *Abstain*: 0 Thank you very much for your participation and support. Cheers, Marco -- Marco Bernasocchi QGIS.org Chair OSGEO.org VP Europe OPENGIS.ch CEO http://berna.io -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: