[QGIS-Developer] Environmental policy

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

[QGIS-Developer] Environmental policy

pcav
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?
  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?
  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?
  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?
  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?
  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?

I tried to collect options and ideas, please do not take these as my
personal preferences.
Given the wide interest and impact of this theme, I encourage an open
and friendly discussion involving also non PSC members. Please be gentle.
Following this I'll call for a vote on specific items.
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Raymond Nijssen
Hi Paolo,

Good point! Or many good points actually.

For both the environment and inclusiveness we could think about having a
more decentralized approach for the contributor meetings. Since most
developers are living in Europe, meetings are in Europe, which attracts
more European developers etc. That loop needs a *break*. And of course
the pollution of traveling is there, especially from attendees living
far away.

So I was thinking of a 3-day 24/7 hackfest. From several, somehow
digitally interconnected, places.

Would miss all the hugging though! :'(

Cheers,
Raymond



Terglobo
Fahrenheitstraat 1
5223 BJ 's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands
+31 (0) 6 25 31 49 83

On 16-01-2020 12:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Hi all,
> following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
> discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:
>
> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?
> * probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
>    * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
> extensive and structured use of remote connections?
>    * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?
>    * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
> total travel?
>    * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
> that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?
>    * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
> impact transportation?
>    * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
> method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
> x times flight cost or duration
> * do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
> to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
> reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
> * do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
> Meetings?
>
> I tried to collect options and ideas, please do not take these as my
> personal preferences.
> Given the wide interest and impact of this theme, I encourage an open
> and friendly discussion involving also non PSC members. Please be gentle.
> Following this I'll call for a vote on specific items.
> Cheers.
>
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Tim Sutton-6
Hi

I am glad we have so many bunny huggers in our community. The weird thing about in-person meetings is how it dedicates and focusses people’s time and attention which I could never replicate as a remote participant in these kind of event. Maybe my donkey needs feeding or my wife wants me to stop ignoring her if I am sitting at home staring at the screen. If I am there in person, suddenly the donkey gets fed by someone else and my wife seems to not mind that I am ignoring her for a few days. 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/5KgUXSD1QX5om7TSA <- donkey looking pleased I am not at a hack fest

Something more efficient would be to condense our twice yearly get togethers into once a year, longer meeting. We would in a single swoop half the environmental travel cost from our project and maybe still benefit from that oh-so-important face to face time.

And combining it with the user conference would mean that we can have a two tribes event, with a nice mingling of users and contributors.

I am so glad we are discussing this…

Regards

Tim

On 16 Jan 2020, at 11:44, Raymond Nijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Paolo,

Good point! Or many good points actually.

For both the environment and inclusiveness we could think about having a more decentralized approach for the contributor meetings. Since most developers are living in Europe, meetings are in Europe, which attracts more European developers etc. That loop needs a *break*. And of course the pollution of traveling is there, especially from attendees living far away.

So I was thinking of a 3-day 24/7 hackfest. From several, somehow digitally interconnected, places.

Would miss all the hugging though! :'(

Cheers,
Raymond



Terglobo
Fahrenheitstraat 1
5223 BJ 's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands
+31 (0) 6 25 31 49 83

On 16-01-2020 12:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:
* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?
  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?
  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?
  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?
  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?
  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?
I tried to collect options and ideas, please do not take these as my
personal preferences.
Given the wide interest and impact of this theme, I encourage an open
and friendly discussion involving also non PSC members. Please be gentle.
Following this I'll call for a vote on specific items.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer









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-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Alessandro Pasotti-2
In reply to this post by pcav

Hi Paolo,

thank you for bringing this on.

Here is my very personal opinion:

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:20 PM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
 
yes

* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?

we do need in person meetings

  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?

ideally, yes

  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?

yes

  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?

no

  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?

gently push

  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration

no
 
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it

not sure

* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?

maybe vegetarian
 

I know it's just a dream and it won't go anywhere but I would add an item to the list: prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.
It would be a strong message btw.


--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Tim Sutton-6
Hi

On 16 Jan 2020, at 11:52, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Paolo,

thank you for bringing this on.

Here is my very personal opinion:

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:20 PM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
 
yes

* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?

we do need in person meetings

  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?

ideally, yes

  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?

yes

  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?

no

  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?

gently push

  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration

no
 
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it

not sure

* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?

maybe vegetarian

+1 from me for everything above (besides wondering if we could meet once a year).

 

I know it's just a dream and it won't go anywhere but I would add an item to the list: prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.
It would be a strong message btw.

Interesting idea! Also opens the whole ’should we control our own license’ debate again…..

Regards

Tim





--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer









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-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

macho
Hi all,

From a unfortunately long time not attending to hackfests participant I am also in favour to reduce to once a year - and the idea of combining it with user meetings is nice as well.
The Licence "issue" - to be honest they would use it anyway .. but as a message it would be ok (but that would reduce "opensource" to just "source" too for me).

Personally I see train tickets a lot more expensive than flight tickets and I think that should change - otherwise I would prefer a train journey anyway.

Hope to see you all again sometime.

regards
Werner

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi

On 16 Jan 2020, at 11:52, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Paolo,

thank you for bringing this on.

Here is my very personal opinion:

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:20 PM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
 
yes

* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?

we do need in person meetings

  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?

ideally, yes

  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?

yes

  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?

no

  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?

gently push

  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration

no
 
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it

not sure

* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?

maybe vegetarian

+1 from me for everything above (besides wondering if we could meet once a year).

 

I know it's just a dream and it won't go anywhere but I would add an item to the list: prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.
It would be a strong message btw.

Interesting idea! Also opens the whole ’should we control our own license’ debate again…..

Regards

Tim





--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer









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-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

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

I am also adding my personal preferences down here, but I fear this
whole discussion will be a bit difficult to summarize.

Am 16.01.20 um 12:21 schrieb Paolo Cavallini:
> Hi all,
> following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
> discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:
>
> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?

not sure we really need one. But maybe add a section somewhere on the
website, just 1-2 paragraphs/sentences should be enough.

> * probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings

yes - and the downloads of QGIS and our server infrastructure. But
Hetzner already uses green energy (no fossil, no nuclear).

>    * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
> extensive and structured use of remote connections?
I think the in person meetings are still useful.
>    * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?

Not sure - but something to discuss. Maybe we could have one
international meeting per year and then another local one organized by
country user groups or several user groups together.


>    * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
> total travel?

That would be ideal - but maybe not so easy to achieve. We need
volunteers. Often we do not have a choice but have to be lucky to find a
volunteer to organize a meeting.

>    * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
> that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?

maybe, or one international meeting per year, and one more local one to
complement that - see above?

>    * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
> impact transportation?

How about: gently push. And have the policy that we only reimburse train
tickets for short distances (to be defined what a short distance means).

But this only for travels that are reimbursed by QGIS.ORG. If the
participant pay everything by himself, then we can only suggest a travel
mode.

>    * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
> method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
> x times flight cost or duration
We don't want a lot of bureaucracy or a "travel police" ;-) we should
trust on common sense and the good will of our participants. I think
most QGIS people are environmentally sensitive anyway.
> * do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
> to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
> reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it

No. Definitely no donations from our donations. That's not the purpose
of QGIS.ORG.

> * do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
> Meetings?

Only recommend local meeting organizers to also have a focus on our
environmental impacts. What that means is often best known by the locals.

Thanks for picking up this discussion,

Andreas

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
Hi all.

Il 16/01/20 14:39, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

>>    * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
>> method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
>> x times flight cost or duration
> We don't want a lot of bureaucracy or a "travel police" ;-) we should
> trust on common sense and the good will of our participants. I think
> most QGIS people are environmentally sensitive anyway.

I don't understand this. The question was (sorry if unclear):
should we only reimburse train travel, whathever the cost and the
duration, or this should be done until a certain difference?
e.g. (numbers made up)
train 10 h, 100 € | flight 8 h, 80 € > train
train 20 h, 300 € | flight 23 h, 50 € > flight

>> * do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
>> to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
>> reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
>
> No. Definitely no donations from our donations. That's not the purpose
> of QGIS.ORG.

again, I was probably unclear. the purpose of QGIS.ORG is certainly to
provide the best GIS tools to everyone. as a direct contribution towards
a more sustainable planet we could donate tools especially useful to
plan and reduce impacts.

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

Re: Environmental policy

Falk Huettmann
In reply to this post by pcav
Dear Kind Colleagues,
...may I suggest to add GLOBAL PEACE & WAR issues to this QGIS discussion on environmental questions ?

Arguably, ArcGIS was part-created and promoted by the U.S. military, industry etc.
and recent drone applications all rely on GIS work either way.
Any public development on 'mapping' will directly affect those subjects (see here for instance for an example of hidden double-development

One cannot separate out those topics from the environment and sustainability, or a better lifestyle.

And yes,
 most people spend rather their times with bunnies and donkeys than with tigers and predators  (try it out for yourself if in doubt).

Kindly from Alaska
   Falk Huettmann

PS A typical example how this all is connected,  and for the role of GIS sits in the Himalaya where glacier mapping and river maps relate
to food security (rice) and warfare, e.g. Afghanistan. Entire drug wars are relying on such a 'recci'.
Other examples are found with submarines etc.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:20 AM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
* probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
  * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
extensive and structured use of remote connections?
  * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?
  * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
total travel?
  * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?
  * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
impact transportation?
  * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
x times flight cost or duration
* do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
* do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
Meetings?

I tried to collect options and ideas, please do not take these as my
personal preferences.
Given the wide interest and impact of this theme, I encourage an open
and friendly discussion involving also non PSC members. Please be gentle.
Following this I'll call for a vote on specific items.
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Even Rouault-2
Regarding

> prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.

and

> ...may I suggest to add GLOBAL PEACE & WAR issues to this QGIS
> discussion on environmental questions ?

That's not a good idea IHMO. Don't mix licensing & ethics. Free software
licenses explicitly don't discriminate against fields of endehavor (see clause
6 of https://opensource.org/osd-annotated ), and adding discrimination is
currently generally considered as being a bad idea and likely not enforcable
in most juridictions, although they are debates around attempts at having
ethical open source licensing
(https://medium.com/@gmcgath/the-futility-of-the-hippocratic-license-b6a9ad981dec).

Things can get really complex. For example, regarding prohibiting the use to
the fossil-fuels industry, what about car makers: should they be considered as
being part of the fossil-fuel industry, and thus prohibited from using the
software and thus using proprietary mapping solution instead, etc etc. (Open
Source) licensing is (or is perceived to be) a sufficiently complex topic
already to not complicate it further.

Personal note: my contributions to FOSS4G related software all started because
I was able to use them in the context of working in the defense industry in my
past life: is it about peace or war ? both, depending from the point of view.

I should also remind, that for good or worse, the EPSG database that is
critical to proper CRS management in our software is mostly maintained by
IOGP.

The world is complex.

Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

pcav


Il 16/01/20 19:27, Even Rouault ha scritto:

> The world is complex.

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

Re: Environmental policy

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
Hi,

Yes, I'd also like to focus on the original issue:

QGIS.ORG should only fund train tickets for short distance travels to
QGIS contributor meetings (and come up with a definition what "short
distance" means).

The other discussions about restricting usage of QGIS is a "can of
worms". The world is not black and white and some substantial amount of
FOSSGIS software originated from military backgrounds.

Andreas

Am 16.01.20 um 19:27 schrieb Even Rouault:

> Regarding
>
>> prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.
> and
>
>> ...may I suggest to add GLOBAL PEACE & WAR issues to this QGIS
>> discussion on environmental questions ?
> That's not a good idea IHMO. Don't mix licensing & ethics. Free software
> licenses explicitly don't discriminate against fields of endehavor (see clause
> 6 of https://opensource.org/osd-annotated ), and adding discrimination is
> currently generally considered as being a bad idea and likely not enforcable
> in most juridictions, although they are debates around attempts at having
> ethical open source licensing
> (https://medium.com/@gmcgath/the-futility-of-the-hippocratic-license-b6a9ad981dec).
>
> Things can get really complex. For example, regarding prohibiting the use to
> the fossil-fuels industry, what about car makers: should they be considered as
> being part of the fossil-fuel industry, and thus prohibited from using the
> software and thus using proprietary mapping solution instead, etc etc. (Open
> Source) licensing is (or is perceived to be) a sufficiently complex topic
> already to not complicate it further.
>
> Personal note: my contributions to FOSS4G related software all started because
> I was able to use them in the context of working in the defense industry in my
> past life: is it about peace or war ? both, depending from the point of view.
>
> I should also remind, that for good or worse, the EPSG database that is
> critical to proper CRS management in our software is mostly maintained by
> IOGP.
>
> The world is complex.
>
> Even
>
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Bo Victor Thomsen

2 cents and 2 minor points:

  • One country's freedom fighters is another country's terrorists.
  • The EPSG in the CRS code is an acronym for "European Petroleum Survey Group"

Don't mix personal moral/ethics with licensing

-- 
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Bo Victor Thomsen
Den 16-01-2020 kl. 20:05 skrev Andreas Neumann:
Hi,

Yes, I'd also like to focus on the original issue:

QGIS.ORG should only fund train tickets for short distance travels to QGIS contributor meetings (and come up with a definition what "short distance" means).

The other discussions about restricting usage of QGIS is a "can of worms". The world is not black and white and some substantial amount of FOSSGIS software originated from military backgrounds.

Andreas

Am 16.01.20 um 19:27 schrieb Even Rouault:
Regarding

prohibit the use of QGIS to the fossil-fuels industry.
and

...may I suggest to add GLOBAL PEACE & WAR issues to this QGIS
discussion on environmental questions ?
That's not a good idea IHMO. Don't mix licensing & ethics. Free software
licenses explicitly don't discriminate against fields of endehavor (see clause
6 of https://opensource.org/osd-annotated ), and adding discrimination is
currently generally considered as being a bad idea and likely not enforcable
in most juridictions, although they are debates around attempts at having
ethical open source licensing
(https://medium.com/@gmcgath/the-futility-of-the-hippocratic-license-b6a9ad981dec).

Things can get really complex. For example, regarding prohibiting the use to
the fossil-fuels industry, what about car makers: should they be considered as
being part of the fossil-fuel industry, and thus prohibited from using the
software and thus using proprietary mapping solution instead, etc etc. (Open
Source) licensing is (or is perceived to be) a sufficiently complex topic
already to not complicate it further.

Personal note: my contributions to FOSS4G related software all started because
I was able to use them in the context of working in the defense industry in my
past life: is it about peace or war ? both, depending from the point of view.

I should also remind, that for good or worse, the EPSG database that is
critical to proper CRS management in our software is mostly maintained by
IOGP.

The world is complex.

Even

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

  


_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Jorge Gustavo Rocha
In reply to this post by pcav
Hi,

1) I don't think QGIS.ORG was created to educate people. QGIS.ORG is
doing the job quite well and doesn't have to follow the latest fashion
trends.

2) If QGIS.ORG starts to educate people about environmental issues, the
next step will be about ethical, moral, gender, religion, etc, as we saw
in some emails. Should QGIS.ORG prevent alcoholic drinks (like beer) in
the events? Or unhealthy practices, like smoking or programming for a
couple of hours without regular intervals?

3) QGIS.ORG should follow the open source values and support the ones
that contribute to the project and should care about overall QGIS ecosystem.

3) Each of us have to decide if train is better, car sharing, walking,
etc, according to our own lives. Some might have young children, a sick
spouse or elder parents and prefer the plane instead of train.

4) QGIS.ORG should simple welcome and support the developers asking for
support. QGIS.ORG didn't ask about gender, religion, or anything else
before. So, I don't think we should start asking about eating habits and
so on. We will end up asking about the civil registration of the birth
of children or the spouse's medical record to be eligible for a plane
refund.

In summary, each of us needs his own "environmental policy". QGIS.ORG
doesn't have to have one.

See you soon in 's-Hertogenbosch!

Jorge Gustavo

On 16/01/20 11:21, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

> Hi all,
> following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
> discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:
>
> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?
> * probably our greatest impact is travel for Developers Meetings
>   * do we need in person general meetings, or we can promote more
> extensive and structured use of remote connections?
>   * if we need it, do we need two meetings per year?
>   * do we want to plan our meetings in an optimal location, to minimize
> total travel?
>   * do we want a combination between the two: smaller local meetings
> that reduce travel, coordinated across the globe?
>   * do we want to suggest|gently push|require participants to use low
> impact transportation?
>   * do we want a cap on cost and time difference between transportation
> method? e.g. train is to be used when cost or duration are no more than
> x times flight cost or duration
> * do we want to engage in proactive environmental actions? e.g. donating
> to the environmental agencies|NGOs|etc. specific tools to evaluate and
> reduce impact? e.g. a QGIS ad hoc grant with a specific budget for it
> * do we want additional actions? e.g. low impact (vegan) diet on Dev
> Meetings?
>
> I tried to collect options and ideas, please do not take these as my
> personal preferences.
> Given the wide interest and impact of this theme, I encourage an open
> and friendly discussion involving also non PSC members. Please be gentle.
> Following this I'll call for a vote on specific items.
> Cheers.
>

J. Gustavo
--
Jorge Gustavo Rocha
Departamento de Informática
Universidade do Minho
4710-057 Braga
Gabinete 3.29 (Piso 3)
Tel: +351 253604480
Fax: +351 253604471
Móvel: +351 910333888
skype: nabocudnosor
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
Hi all,
this is turning out a very interesting discussion, that shows the
variety and richness of the approaches within our community.
Please keep on voicing your opinions, so we can have a broader
perspective before reaching a decision, hopefully shared by everyone.
I'm sure many others have interesting things to say.
Cheers.

Il 17/01/20 00:33, Jorge Gustavo Rocha ha scritto:
> Hi,
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

3nids
Hi all,

I would just like to say I am totally in favor of having an environmental policy which would just state that we are acting and considering environmental issues in our work.

I am totally supporting the idea of promoting the train for reachable places and try to avoid too disconnected places.
It might be very difficult to come up with a strict formula, and I would say it makes more sense to evaluate this per meeting?
Also, the idea of 1 longer meeting makes sense, since that's the easiest way to reduce the moves. Promoting secondary and/or simultaneous events in other places (by sponsoring them too) would be nice too.

I also believe that personal meetups are essential to our community, maybe because the beer or any non-alcoholic beverage doesn't go through fiber channels.

That makes me jump to my last point: I don't see that bringing an environmental policy is an open door to ethical or political matters. Mainly because they are totally different things: environmental issues are scientific facts while ethics or politics are tight to human cultures and beliefs.

Things are moving fast lately, and we'll be / we are being judged by our children, and....promoting the train is the very least we can do.
People are still free to to do whatever they prefer. I guess for now (half kidding, half serious).

Anyway, thanks Andreas for raising this discussion and shaking us. And PSC for making the discussion continue.

Best wishes,
Denis

Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 11:44, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi all,
this is turning out a very interesting discussion, that shows the
variety and richness of the approaches within our community.
Please keep on voicing your opinions, so we can have a broader
perspective before reaching a decision, hopefully shared by everyone.
I'm sure many others have interesting things to say.
Cheers.

Il 17/01/20 00:33, Jorge Gustavo Rocha ha scritto:
> Hi,
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Falk Huettmann
Dear Colleagues,

thanks;

three things, if I may add them here. I think they do matter:

-train-location events sound great, but have no good global meaning. Most continents cannot be reached by or from trains (think planes, ships or others).
 One way or another, you need to think global, and where most users sit (outside of the EU ?). I would think without U.S., China, Africa, Latin America or India QGIS has no good future. And how about Aussi and New Zealand ?
 So I propose cyber sessions instead.

-same applies to the definition and use of GIS: it's global now and must include all aspects, warfare and environmental atmospheric issues (that includes IPCC for instance).
 Feel free to think about 'space NASA' issues too.

-Overall, QGIS now grew big, but it then faces truly global issues. It's better to tackle them and be aware.
Otherwise, QGIS will go down and be replaced (see what happened to SPANS, SAGA or GRASS earlier, and watch GIS in R for that matter, or python)

One way forward here would be to acknowledge those issues and start with a holistic and effective vision statement including those things above.
Then you can try to tackle them on more individual sections, but not losing the wider context.

Those would be my 3 cents on the issue; hope it helps.

Very best

      Falk Huettmann


On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 1:07 AM Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I would just like to say I am totally in favor of having an environmental policy which would just state that we are acting and considering environmental issues in our work.

I am totally supporting the idea of promoting the train for reachable places and try to avoid too disconnected places.
It might be very difficult to come up with a strict formula, and I would say it makes more sense to evaluate this per meeting?
Also, the idea of 1 longer meeting makes sense, since that's the easiest way to reduce the moves. Promoting secondary and/or simultaneous events in other places (by sponsoring them too) would be nice too.

I also believe that personal meetups are essential to our community, maybe because the beer or any non-alcoholic beverage doesn't go through fiber channels.

That makes me jump to my last point: I don't see that bringing an environmental policy is an open door to ethical or political matters. Mainly because they are totally different things: environmental issues are scientific facts while ethics or politics are tight to human cultures and beliefs.

Things are moving fast lately, and we'll be / we are being judged by our children, and....promoting the train is the very least we can do.
People are still free to to do whatever they prefer. I guess for now (half kidding, half serious).

Anyway, thanks Andreas for raising this discussion and shaking us. And PSC for making the discussion continue.

Best wishes,
Denis

Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 11:44, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi all,
this is turning out a very interesting discussion, that shows the
variety and richness of the approaches within our community.
Please keep on voicing your opinions, so we can have a broader
perspective before reaching a decision, hopefully shared by everyone.
I'm sure many others have interesting things to say.
Cheers.

Il 17/01/20 00:33, Jorge Gustavo Rocha ha scritto:
> Hi,
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

signedav
In reply to this post by 3nids
Hi there

I like the idea of having an environmental policy which state that we are considering environmental issues as well.

Likewise I support Andreas' original input, that QGIS.ORG should only fund train tickets for short distance travels to QGIS contributor meetings.
I think it's not about educating people in their lifestyle, it's about "not supporting financially" things. Everyone will still be free to travel self-payed by plane and nobody should be blamed for doing it (like QGIS.ORG doesn't blame anyone for smoking, but doesn't pay the cigarettes either).
In case that someone has a difficult situation like e.g. sick spouse and cannot afford the plane travel by him-/herself, maybe exceptions for individual cases can be made.

Other topics depend on where the meeting takes place. In universities, it's probably easy to offer vegan food only. In e.g. Madeira where we went out eating, it depends on what's offered by the restaurants.

I have no strong opinion yet regarding the amount of meetings etc. but providing good possibilities to participate on the meeting via remote makes sense anyway for all who cannot be there for whatever reason.

Thanks and cheers
Dave

20 January 2020 11:07 Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I would just like to say I am totally in favor of having an environmental policy which would just state that we are acting and considering environmental issues in our work.

I am totally supporting the idea of promoting the train for reachable places and try to avoid too disconnected places.
It might be very difficult to come up with a strict formula, and I would say it makes more sense to evaluate this per meeting?
Also, the idea of 1 longer meeting makes sense, since that's the easiest way to reduce the moves. Promoting secondary and/or simultaneous events in other places (by sponsoring them too) would be nice too.

I also believe that personal meetups are essential to our community, maybe because the beer or any non-alcoholic beverage doesn't go through fiber channels.

That makes me jump to my last point: I don't see that bringing an environmental policy is an open door to ethical or political matters. Mainly because they are totally different things: environmental issues are scientific facts while ethics or politics are tight to human cultures and beliefs.

Things are moving fast lately, and we'll be / we are being judged by our children, and....promoting the train is the very least we can do.
People are still free to to do whatever they prefer. I guess for now (half kidding, half serious).

Anyway, thanks Andreas for raising this discussion and shaking us. And PSC for making the discussion continue.

Best wishes,
Denis

Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 11:44, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi all,
this is turning out a very interesting discussion, that shows the
variety and richness of the approaches within our community.
Please keep on voicing your opinions, so we can have a broader
perspective before reaching a decision, hopefully shared by everyone.
I'm sure many others have interesting things to say.
Cheers.

Il 17/01/20 00:33, Jorge Gustavo Rocha ha scritto:
> Hi,
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
<>


_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer