Discussion our financial situation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
Hi all,

I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with the
budget:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0

I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and expenses
will be higher than expected.

In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of the
year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not to have
to pay taxes on revenues.

Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?

Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?

Thanks for the discussion,

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Tim Sutton-6
Hi


I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to have a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari onto this.

Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on, we seem to have an endless supply :-P

Regards

Tim

On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with the budget:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0

I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and expenses will be higher than expected.

In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not to have to pay taxes on revenues.

Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished until January for around 15k?

Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?

Thanks for the discussion,

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 




---

Tim Sutton





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

pcav
Hi all,
thanks Andreas for this precious volunteer work: we know how tedious it
can be. Good to see things are progressing, and are going generally
better that our expectations.
My comments:
* the missed expenses for GH migration means that the devs did it
voluntarily?
* I see LC meeting was more expensive than predicted; I understand the
organizers devoted back a part of the income to QGIS.ORG: does this
balance off?
* certification is starting to get momentum; the plan was to have a
self-sustaining structure, so I believe a part of the surplus should be
devoted to the development, setup, and management of the infrastructure
(thanks Tim!)
I'd appreciate your comments on these points.
If we end up with a net profit, I suggest reinvesting it mostly in
bugfixing, secondarily in grant programs (something like 75/25). I
believe the interesting proposal from Tim can easily fall in the second
category.
I think we should also discuss about:
* how effective each expense is, to learn from the lesson and do an even
better allocation for the future
* the balance between paid work and volunteer work, to ensure a fair
treatment for anybody.
All the best, and thanks again.

Il 14/11/19 01:00, Tim Sutton ha scritto:

> Hi
>
>
> I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe
> etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for
> certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to have
> a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and
> automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or
> similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already
> underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari
> onto this.
>
> Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on,
> we seem to have an endless supply :-P
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>> On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
>> the budget:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0
>>
>> I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
>> expenses will be higher than expected.
>>
>> In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
>> the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
>> to have to pay taxes on revenues.
>>
>> Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
>> until January for around 15k?
>>
>> Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
>> Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
>>
>> Thanks for the discussion,
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Tim Sutton*
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6

Hi Tim

Improving our infrastructure (stripe integration, changelog, etc.) is definitely worth-while investing into it. Do you have estimates, how much time/money certain tasks would imply?

Or should we say - let's dedicate 10k € and let you work with it?

Yes, I also agree that bug fixing is always useful.

Thanks for your reply and greetings,

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 01:00, Tim Sutton wrote:

Hi
 
 
I would be grateful if we (Kartoza) could get funded to add the stripe etc integration into the sponsorships platform, stripe payments for certifications, and also improving the infrastructure management to have a better setup for hosting plugins, feed, changelog, planet, and automating the hosting of API Docs and QGIS site as GitHub pages or similar static hosting environment. Many of these task are already underway but it would help us to get dedicated time from Anita Hapsari onto this.
 
Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on, we seem to have an endless supply :-P
 
Regards
 
Tim

On 13 Nov 2019, at 21:57, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,

I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with the budget:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0

I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and expenses will be higher than expected.

In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not to have to pay taxes on revenues.

Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished until January for around 15k?

Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?

Thanks for the discussion,

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 




---
 
Tim Sutton
 




_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by pcav

Hi Paolo,

On 2019-11-14 05:44, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

My comments:
* the missed expenses for GH migration means that the devs did it
voluntarily?
 
 
That budget item was actually for github to gitlab migration - which did not really happen and there isn't even consensus that we should do it.
 
If you mean the Redmine to Github issue migration - yes, that wasn't invoiced and thus voluntary work.
 

* I see LC meeting was more expensive than predicted; I understand the
organizers devoted back a part of the income to QGIS.ORG: does this
balance off?
 
 
What is an LC meeting? Sorry, I don't understand this term.
 

* certification is starting to get momentum; the plan was to have a
self-sustaining structure, so I believe a part of the surplus should be
devoted to the development, setup, and management of the infrastructure
(thanks Tim!)
 
 
Yes, it's progressing nicely. I wonder, if in the future, such income should be dedicated into improving the training material and education situation? Would make sense to me. As many people pointed out, training and education, and getting into University curricula seems to be one of the key factors why ESRI is so successful. It would make sense to dedicate funds towards this aspect. Not that I have clear ideas what this means, but maybe others have?
 
 

I'd appreciate your comments on these points.
If we end up with a net profit, I suggest reinvesting it mostly in
bugfixing, secondarily in grant programs (something like 75/25). I
believe the interesting proposal from Tim can easily fall in the second
category.
 
 
yes
 

I think we should also discuss about:
* how effective each expense is, to learn from the lesson and do an even
better allocation for the future
 
 
I think most of the expenses (bug fixing definitely, grants, maintenance of packaging and code reviews, CI, etc.) definitely pay off. There is no doubt about that. Also investing into our infrastructure is a necessity. Do you see any expenses that seem unnecessary or ineffective? I don't
 
Another thing that we should continue is investing into related and upstream projects. The qt5 improvement and collaboration with KDAB seems to have been successful and there would be further improvements that would be useful.
 

* the balance between paid work and volunteer work, to ensure a fair
treatment for anybody.
 
 
That is always a tough topic. What I can say is that most, if not all, people who get payments from QGIS.ORG invest in addition at least an equal amount of time that they invoice to QGIS.ORG. Also enabling our core devs to dedicate some days in a row an bug fixing and let them focus in some areas of our code base or grant projects is more effective in my opinion than trying to come up with complicated other systems, like estimating things up-front and ask for detailed quotes. This would only add a lot of administrative burdens and by the time, devs analyzed things to do a proper quote, they already did most of the work.
 
But this is my personal opinion.
 
Greetings,
Andreas
 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi,

That's very good news.

After the recent discussions, I think another place for investment would
be a windows CI. But if the budget can be used by Kartoza for
infrastructure work, it's easy to push that back to the next grant
proposals - or start with some exploratory work first which aims to be
completed in a separate project later.

Matthias


On 11/13/19 9:57 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
> the budget:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0 
>
>
> I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
> expenses will be higher than expected.
>
> In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
> the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
> to have to pay taxes on revenues.
>
> Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
> until January for around 15k?
>
> Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
> Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
>
> Thanks for the discussion,
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Anita Graser
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?

On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.

Regards,
Anita



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4

Hi Matthias,

Would it be an option to "self-host" appveyor at our own (to be ordered) Hetzner Windows machine?

I see that Appveyor offers a self-hosted version, free for one team and with only community support: https://www.appveyor.com/self-hosted/

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:22, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi Andreas,

It would certainly be an option. And there are others as well (like good old Jenkins for example).

Are you asking for self-hosted because of performance or for other reasons? I think in the past there was a shift towards outsourcing such things to external services that do this as their core business instead of having to manage infrastructure on our own (e.g. github, travis).

As mentioned before, I think someone will need to invest some real time to exploring possibilities and limitations to be able to come forward with a good plan of action. I think it would be good to have a week of time to test different options.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 9:28 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Would it be an option to "self-host" appveyor at our own (to be ordered) Hetzner Windows machine?

I see that Appveyor offers a self-hosted version, free for one team and with only community support: https://www.appveyor.com/self-hosted/

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:22, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Régis Haubourg -2
In reply to this post by Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Hi All,

+1 to work on a windows CI. Hugo and Julien have some recent experience
in this area and we really much agree on this point to be a top priority.

Unfortunately, we have no availability before february to work on such
tasks.

regards,

Régis

On 14/11/2019 08:49, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

> Hi,
>
> That's very good news.
>
> After the recent discussions, I think another place for investment
> would be a windows CI. But if the budget can be used by Kartoza for
> infrastructure work, it's easy to push that back to the next grant
> proposals - or start with some exploratory work first which aims to be
> completed in a separate project later.
>
> Matthias
>
>
> On 11/13/19 9:57 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I compiled a summary of our financial situation and compare it with
>> the budget:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I_xXVE8RGBNFnJGoBhdLYO4MVm8DlCRudhM1DRINSq8/edit#gid=0
>>
>>
>> I also added expected income and expenses. Both our income and
>> expenses will be higher than expected.
>>
>> In summary, we should spend an additional 15-18k € until the end of
>> the year that is not in the budget or expected expenses in order not
>> to have to pay taxes on revenues.
>>
>> Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be
>> finished until January for around 15k?
>>
>> Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find
>> one)? Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
>>
>> Thanks for the discussion,
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

--
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management

mail: [hidden email]
tél: 0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

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

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Alessandro Pasotti-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:28 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Would it be an option to "self-host" appveyor at our own (to be ordered) Hetzner Windows machine?

I see that Appveyor offers a self-hosted version, free for one team and with only community support: https://www.appveyor.com/self-hosted/

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:22, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



Hi, I fully agree on all proposals, if we have a few bucks lefts I'd really like to dedicate some time to fix and enhance the HTML/CSS part of the website and in particular the documentation/manual, I think that the current style is not ideal and I would like to see something more similar to https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/  with:
- TOC on the right side
- color theme more in line with our official color palette
- better fonts and styles for sections and headings
- better layout for bulleted lists

There are also some minor things that could be enhanced in the plugins website:
- mobile layout has some glitches
- what to do with popular plugins (better algorithm?, drop it completely?)


Personally, I'd be happier to work on bugfixing but I also feel that somebody should really dedicate some time to the visual side of the websites.

Kind regards

--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi Matthias,

Outsourcing infrastructure is preferred - I think. But if the outsourced services are so limited that they can't handle a large project like QGIS, or take waaayyyyy ttoooooo loooooongggggg to build, then self-hosted might be superior? A six or 8-core machine at Hetzners is certainly affordable.

Certainly something to investigate.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:40, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

It would certainly be an option. And there are others as well (like good old Jenkins for example).

Are you asking for self-hosted because of performance or for other reasons? I think in the past there was a shift towards outsourcing such things to external services that do this as their core business instead of having to manage infrastructure on our own (e.g. github, travis).

As mentioned before, I think someone will need to invest some real time to exploring possibilities and limitations to be able to come forward with a good plan of action. I think it would be good to have a week of time to test different options.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 9:28 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Would it be an option to "self-host" appveyor at our own (to be ordered) Hetzner Windows machine?

I see that Appveyor offers a self-hosted version, free for one team and with only community support: https://www.appveyor.com/self-hosted/

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:22, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc




_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Matthias Kuhn 🌍

Hi Andreas,

I totally agree, if an external service is not able to handle the size, this is a killer argument to setup "a beefy enough server" (to put it in Evens words) on our own.

At opengis, we could spend 5 days on this in January, I'm happy to know if the PSC decides that this project should be a priority.

Best regards

Matthias

On 11/14/19 9:43 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Outsourcing infrastructure is preferred - I think. But if the outsourced services are so limited that they can't handle a large project like QGIS, or take waaayyyyy ttoooooo loooooongggggg to build, then self-hosted might be superior? A six or 8-core machine at Hetzners is certainly affordable.

Certainly something to investigate.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:40, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

It would certainly be an option. And there are others as well (like good old Jenkins for example).

Are you asking for self-hosted because of performance or for other reasons? I think in the past there was a shift towards outsourcing such things to external services that do this as their core business instead of having to manage infrastructure on our own (e.g. github, travis).

As mentioned before, I think someone will need to invest some real time to exploring possibilities and limitations to be able to come forward with a good plan of action. I think it would be good to have a week of time to test different options.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 9:28 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Would it be an option to "self-host" appveyor at our own (to be ordered) Hetzner Windows machine?

I see that Appveyor offers a self-hosted version, free for one team and with only community support: https://www.appveyor.com/self-hosted/

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 09:22, Matthias Kuhn wrote:

Hi Andreas,

Yes, I remember this. I also invested some time into AppVeyor back then and the timeouts.

Finding a reliable solution and exploring possibilities will be an investment in itself already. I think that with a good financial situation, it's also a good possibility for the project to invest into such an area with a potentially great benefit. But it's ultimately the PSC's decision if the project prefers to sponsor this work or hope for it to happen and outsource the work and risks.

Matthias

On 11/14/19 8:59 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:

Hi,

The Windows CI thing would be worth-wile to invest it. But I think we already had it in the past and because of a lot of problems (e.g. timeouts when building, etc.) we stopped using it. I know that we definitely paid for such a service in the past. It was called "Appveyor" back then. Nyall might know more about it. I think he paid for it upfront and then I reimbursed him. That was in 2016.

I think we would first have to find a reliable solution for Windows CI before investing into it.

Andreas

On 2019-11-14 08:51, Anita Graser wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:57 PM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Any ideas? Do we have useful and important work that could be finished
until January for around 15k?
Should we invest more QGIS bug fixing? Documentation (if we find one)?
Our infrastructure? Or upstream qt5 improvements?
 
On the infrastructure side, there seems to be interest in Windows based CI. See current thread on [Qgis-psc] Direct push forbidden to master. However, I'm not 100% sure how this relates to a previous discussion from 2018 in the thread [QGIS-Developer] Windows compilation infrastructure.
 
Regards,
Anita
 
 



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc




_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

DelazJ
In reply to this post by Alessandro Pasotti-2
Hi Ale, all

Le jeu. 14 nov. 2019 à 09:43, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:28 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, I fully agree on all proposals, if we have a few bucks lefts I'd really like to dedicate some time to fix and enhance the HTML/CSS part of the website and in particular the documentation/manual, I think that the current style is not ideal and I would like to see something more similar to https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/  with:
- TOC on the right side
- color theme more in line with our official color palette
- better fonts and styles for sections and headings
- better layout for bulleted lists

Speaking only for the documentation, Richard has proposed months ago a migration to a readthedocs-based theme and I've been looking into this the last weeks. An earlier version is available at https://qgis.org/test/en/docs/  with a branch at https://github.com/DelazJ/QGIS-Documentation/blob/bing_bang_boum/ (not the latest changes)
This does not seem to be the same look as what are you are suggesting but the main missing visual bits (not pushed online) is the menu at the bottom allowing to move to versions and translations.

Sorry if ever i'm off-topic but wanted to share that information in case something has to be decided in this area.

Regards,
Harrissou


There are also some minor things that could be enhanced in the plugins website:
- mobile layout has some glitches
- what to do with popular plugins (better algorithm?, drop it completely?)


Personally, I'd be happier to work on bugfixing but I also feel that somebody should really dedicate some time to the visual side of the websites.

Kind regards

--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Alessandro Pasotti-2

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:11 AM DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ale, all

Le jeu. 14 nov. 2019 à 09:43, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:28 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, I fully agree on all proposals, if we have a few bucks lefts I'd really like to dedicate some time to fix and enhance the HTML/CSS part of the website and in particular the documentation/manual, I think that the current style is not ideal and I would like to see something more similar to https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/  with:
- TOC on the right side
- color theme more in line with our official color palette
- better fonts and styles for sections and headings
- better layout for bulleted lists

Speaking only for the documentation, Richard has proposed months ago a migration to a readthedocs-based theme and I've been looking into this the last weeks. An earlier version is available at https://qgis.org/test/en/docs/  with a branch at https://github.com/DelazJ/QGIS-Documentation/blob/bing_bang_boum/ (not the latest changes)
This does not seem to be the same look as what are you are suggesting but the main missing visual bits (not pushed online) is the menu at the bottom allowing to move to versions and translations.

Sorry if ever i'm off-topic but wanted to share that information in case something has to be decided in this area.


Thanks for the update.  I like the readthedocs-based theme more than the current one, that's a good start!

Maybe it could be improved a little and it could share the color scheme with the Python API docs but it's a good starting point indeed.

Cheers

--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Tim Sutton-6
Hi

On 14 Nov 2019, at 10:15, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:11 AM DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ale, all

Le jeu. 14 nov. 2019 à 09:43, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:28 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, I fully agree on all proposals, if we have a few bucks lefts I'd really like to dedicate some time to fix and enhance the HTML/CSS part of the website and in particular the documentation/manual, I think that the current style is not ideal and I would like to see something more similar to https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/  with:
- TOC on the right side
- color theme more in line with our official color palette
- better fonts and styles for sections and headings
- better layout for bulleted lists

Speaking only for the documentation, Richard has proposed months ago a migration to a readthedocs-based theme and I've been looking into this the last weeks. An earlier version is available at https://qgis.org/test/en/docs/  with a branch at https://github.com/DelazJ/QGIS-Documentation/blob/bing_bang_boum/  (not the latest changes)
This does not seem to be the same look as what are you are suggesting but the main missing visual bits (not pushed online) is the menu at the bottom allowing to move to versions and translations.

Sorry if ever i'm off-topic but wanted to share that information in case something has to be decided in this area.


We could include that in the infrastructure updates work we propose. I have already done some testing of hosting on GitHub pages:


Basically pushing all the statically generated docs into a version controlled git repo: https://github.com/qgis/docs.qgis.org

And a prototype for putting the API into GitHub pages:


I think we can do the read the docs theme but update it to match colours etc to the current web site - I agree, modernising the theme would be good.

Regards

Tim



Thanks for the update.  I like the readthedocs-based theme more than the current one, that's a good start!

Maybe it could be improved a little and it could share the color scheme with the Python API docs but it's a good starting point indeed.

Cheers

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc









Tim Sutton

Co-founder: Kartoza
Ex Project chair: QGIS.org

Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:

Desktop GIS programming services
Geospatial web development
GIS Training
Consulting Services

Skype: timlinux 
IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net

I'd love to connect. Here's my calendar link to make finding time easy.


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Giovanni Manghi
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6
Hi all,


Beyond that bug fixing is always a worthwhile thing to spend funds on, we seem to have an endless supply :-P


If you are going to choose do some bug fixing I'll leave to your consideration the regressions list:


While there are certainly a few that are probably false positives or already fixed, there are also quite a lot that are confirmed.

cheers

-- G --



 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion our financial situation

Jürgen E. Fischer
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi Andreas,

On Thu, 14. Nov 2019 at 08:37:28 +0100, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> What is an LC meeting? Sorry, I don't understand this term.

I guess (L)a Coruña.


Jürgen

--
Jürgen E. Fischer           norBIT GmbH             Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)             Rheinstraße 13          Fax. +49-4931-918175-50
Software Engineer           D-26506 Norden            https://www.norbit.de
QGIS release manager (PSC)  Germany                    IRC: jef on FreeNode

norBIT Gesellschaft fuer Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH
Rheinstrasse 13, 26506 Norden
GF: Juergen Fischer, Nils Kutscher HR: Amtsgericht Aurich HRB 100827
Datenschutzerklaerung: https://www.norbit.de/83/

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
12