[QGIS-Developer] Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

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

[QGIS-Developer] Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

DelazJ
Hi,
I know there has been a lot of discussion about this subject and sorry
to revive it.
I'd like to propose to reword the "Trusted Plugin" text in the Plugin
Manager into "Trusted Author" or "Trusted Plugin Author".
From what I've understood from the different discussions, it will
better reflect what it is and will avoid misunderstanding from users.
Reading "Trusted plugin" makes people think that this plugin is better
than other "featured duplicate" plugins and, worse, that the behavior
of the plugin is approved by QGIS Project. They could also think that
this is the recommended and bug free plugin from QGIS Project for what
they want to do, which IMHO is wrong: we do not certify the plugin, we
certify we know the author.

I know there have been literature on what trusted means, some blog
post (unfortunately now) hidden on the Internet and even Official doc
doesn't mention this tag (though I'm less and less convinced that
people do read manuals) so a new user may not know what it's about.
A case I have in mind is the Table Manager plugin. For years, it has
been the main tool to refactor a table, did well his job (Thanks
Borys) and its use was advised all over the web. A newcomer will jump
on it without clearly reading its low-level description stating that
it's now a deprecated plugin, because the plugin is green and there's
a green band at the top stating "This plugin is trusted".

My initial intention was to ask to remove that statement (because end
user doesn't care who has plugin approval right) but I think it's also
nice to highlight those people/company that do the communitarian "job"
(reason why they became trusted) and another wording will, I'm
convinced, better serve that.
Thanks.

Regards,
Harrissou
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Anita Graser
Hi Harrissou,

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:14 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
I know there has been a lot of discussion about this subject and sorry
to revive it.
I'd like to propose to reword the "Trusted Plugin" text in the Plugin
Manager into "Trusted Author" or "Trusted Plugin Author".

​Yeah, I think that would make sense.​
 
I know there have been literature on what trusted means, some blog
post (unfortunately now) hidden on the Internet

​For reference:​
 
​Regards,
Anita​


_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Nathan Woodrow
+1 That makes sense to me.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Anita Graser <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Harrissou,

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:14 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
I know there has been a lot of discussion about this subject and sorry
to revive it.
I'd like to propose to reword the "Trusted Plugin" text in the Plugin
Manager into "Trusted Author" or "Trusted Plugin Author".

​Yeah, I think that would make sense.​
 
I know there have been literature on what trusted means, some blog
post (unfortunately now) hidden on the Internet

​For reference:​
 
​Regards,
Anita​


_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
+1 (I prefer the short version "Trusted Author")

On 9/8/17 12:51 AM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
+1 That makes sense to me.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Anita Graser <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Harrissou,

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:14 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
I know there has been a lot of discussion about this subject and sorry
to revive it.
I'd like to propose to reword the "Trusted Plugin" text in the Plugin
Manager into "Trusted Author" or "Trusted Plugin Author".

​Yeah, I think that would make sense.​
 
I know there have been literature on what trusted means, some blog
post (unfortunately now) hidden on the Internet

​For reference:​
 
​Regards,
Anita​


_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Richard Duivenvoorde
In reply to this post by DelazJ
On 07-09-17 18:14, DelazJ wrote:

> Hi,
> I know there has been a lot of discussion about this subject and sorry
> to revive it.
> I'd like to propose to reword the "Trusted Plugin" text in the Plugin
> Manager into "Trusted Author" or "Trusted Plugin Author".
> From what I've understood from the different discussions, it will
> better reflect what it is and will avoid misunderstanding from users.
> Reading "Trusted plugin" makes people think that this plugin is better
> than other "featured duplicate" plugins and, worse, that the behavior
> of the plugin is approved by QGIS Project. They could also think that
> this is the recommended and bug free plugin from QGIS Project for what
> they want to do, which IMHO is wrong: we do not certify the plugin, we
> certify we know the author.
>
> I know there have been literature on what trusted means, some blog
> post (unfortunately now) hidden on the Internet and even Official doc
> doesn't mention this tag (though I'm less and less convinced that
> people do read manuals) so a new user may not know what it's about.
> A case I have in mind is the Table Manager plugin. For years, it has
> been the main tool to refactor a table, did well his job (Thanks
> Borys) and its use was advised all over the web. A newcomer will jump
> on it without clearly reading its low-level description stating that
> it's now a deprecated plugin, because the plugin is green and there's
> a green band at the top stating "This plugin is trusted".
>
> My initial intention was to ask to remove that statement (because end
> user doesn't care who has plugin approval right) but I think it's also
> nice to highlight those people/company that do the communitarian "job"
> (reason why they became trusted) and another wording will, I'm
> convinced, better serve that.

Hi Harrissou:

+1, please do

Regards,

Richard
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Tom Chadwin
So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?

As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process, it
still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the word
"trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In fact,
transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one thing
for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years not
to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me, personally,
not to be trusted.

I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are not
trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the point
that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in general
and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.

Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.

Thanks

Tom



-----
Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
Hi Tom,

I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
would help here?

Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
and potentially hard feelings of this better.

Sidnote:
I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.

Matthias

On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:

> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>
> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process, it
> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the word
> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In fact,
> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one thing
> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years not
> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me, personally,
> not to be trusted.
>
> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are not
> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the point
> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in general
> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>
> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> -----
> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
> --
> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Tom Chadwin
Thanks, Matthias. Very much indeed.

I don't think it's the binary in or out that is the issue. I do think it's
the semantics. However, at the moment I am complaining without a solution -
I have not yet thought of a more appropriate word to use for this labelling
purpose.

100% make the criteria visible, yes, and not just in the blog. It needs to
be (at least in summary) in the plugin manager and on the plugins website.

I think one of the issues with this whole idea is how to achieve something
fair, meaningful, and transparent *without increasing the burden on Paolo*
or whoever else in the future curates the plugins. I wonder whether a
moderately easy criterion for inclusion in the "trusted" collection could be
either the presence of plugin tests, or, ideally, CI, so that some
indication of QA is visible not just to Paolo/whoever approves plugins in
the future, but also to users inclined to investigate for themselves.
Perhaps that's too high a barrier, but as everyone is saying, this does not
prevent other plugins' approval, just their being labelled as trusted.

I think that was a tad more than $0.02 from me. Thanks for you patience.

Tom



-----
Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

ginetto
In reply to this post by Matthias Kuhn 🌍
+1 to thrusted author

side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
**************************************************************************************************


On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
> process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
> would help here?
>
> Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
> trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
> Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
> rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
> author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
> think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
> and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>
> Sidnote:
> I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
> know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
> community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
> there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>
> Matthias
>
> On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>>
>> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process, it
>> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the word
>> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In fact,
>> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one thing
>> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years not
>> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me, personally,
>> not to be trusted.
>>
>> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are not
>> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the point
>> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in general
>> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>>
>> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> --
>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Saber Razmjooei
+1 for Tom to become a trusted author. In addition to the qgis2web plugin, Tom is a very active in QGIS UK usergroups.

Cheers
Saber


On 8 September 2017 at 13:17, Luigi Pirelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 to thrusted author

side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
**************************************************************************************************


On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
> process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
> would help here?
>
> Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
> trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
> Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
> rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
> author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
> think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
> and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>
> Sidnote:
> I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
> know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
> community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
> there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>
> Matthias
>
> On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>>
>> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process, it
>> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the word
>> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In fact,
>> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one thing
>> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years not
>> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me, personally,
>> not to be trusted.
>>
>> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are not
>> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the point
>> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in general
>> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>>
>> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> --
>> Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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



--
Saber Razmjooei
www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
+44 (0)7568 129733

_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

DelazJ
Hi,

Tom, thanks for your input and I'm surprised that you are not a
trusted author (thought that have been discussed a while back).
I was about to propose a pull request this morning with the new
wording but didn't because either "The author of this plugin is
trusted" or "Trusted Author" makes me feel comfortable. It looked to
me that those who do not have this tag are untrusted. And I'm afraid
this could harm their work and they do not deserve that.
So, if the main idea is to promote people that have a community
implication (and I guess we agree they deserve it), how about
"Community contributor"?

2017-09-08 14:27 GMT+02:00 Saber Razmjooei
<[hidden email]>:

> +1 for Tom to become a trusted author. In addition to the qgis2web plugin,
> Tom is a very active in QGIS UK usergroups.
>
> Cheers
> Saber
>
>
> On 8 September 2017 at 13:17, Luigi Pirelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to thrusted author
>>
>> side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
>> mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
>> Luigi Pirelli
>>
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>> * Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
>> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
>> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
>> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
>> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
>> *
>> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Tom,
>> >
>> > I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
>> > process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
>> > would help here?
>> >
>> > Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
>> > trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
>> > Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
>> > rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
>> > author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
>> > think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
>> > and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>> >
>> > Sidnote:
>> > I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
>> > know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
>> > community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
>> > there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>> >
>> > Matthias
>> >
>> > On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> >> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>> >>
>> >> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> >> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process,
>> >> it
>> >> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the
>> >> word
>> >> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In
>> >> fact,
>> >> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one
>> >> thing
>> >> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years
>> >> not
>> >> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me,
>> >> personally,
>> >> not to be trusted.
>> >>
>> >> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are
>> >> not
>> >> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the
>> >> point
>> >> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> >> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> >> general
>> >> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from:
>> >> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saber Razmjooei
> www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
> +44 (0)7568 129733
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

macho
Hi!

I like Community contributor (more than trusted author)
but have another addition
Contributor known by the community ..
But I think that distracts us from the plugins "tag" that it is.

what about "checked" or "scanned" or something like that?

regards
Werner

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:32 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Tom, thanks for your input and I'm surprised that you are not a
trusted author (thought that have been discussed a while back).
I was about to propose a pull request this morning with the new
wording but didn't because either "The author of this plugin is
trusted" or "Trusted Author" makes me feel comfortable. It looked to
me that those who do not have this tag are untrusted. And I'm afraid
this could harm their work and they do not deserve that.
So, if the main idea is to promote people that have a community
implication (and I guess we agree they deserve it), how about
"Community contributor"?

2017-09-08 14:27 GMT+02:00 Saber Razmjooei
<[hidden email]>:
> +1 for Tom to become a trusted author. In addition to the qgis2web plugin,
> Tom is a very active in QGIS UK usergroups.
>
> Cheers
> Saber
>
>
> On 8 September 2017 at 13:17, Luigi Pirelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to thrusted author
>>
>> side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
>> mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
>> Luigi Pirelli
>>
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>> * Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
>> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
>> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
>> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
>> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
>> *
>> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Tom,
>> >
>> > I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
>> > process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
>> > would help here?
>> >
>> > Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
>> > trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
>> > Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
>> > rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
>> > author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
>> > think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
>> > and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>> >
>> > Sidnote:
>> > I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
>> > know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
>> > community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
>> > there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>> >
>> > Matthias
>> >
>> > On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> >> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>> >>
>> >> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> >> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process,
>> >> it
>> >> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the
>> >> word
>> >> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In
>> >> fact,
>> >> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one
>> >> thing
>> >> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years
>> >> not
>> >> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me,
>> >> personally,
>> >> not to be trusted.
>> >>
>> >> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are
>> >> not
>> >> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the
>> >> point
>> >> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> >> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> >> general
>> >> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from:
>> >> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saber Razmjooei
> www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
> <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%297568%20129733" value="+447568129733">+44 (0)7568 129733
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Anita Graser


On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Werner Macho <[hidden email]> wrote:

what about "checked" or "scanned" or something like that?

​Implying that we checked the plugin and everything is guaranteed to be fine is exactly what we want to avoid imho.

Regards,
Anita​


 


_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Alessandro Pasotti-2
In reply to this post by macho
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Werner Macho <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

I like Community contributor (more than trusted author)
but have another addition
Contributor known by the community ..
But I think that distracts us from the plugins "tag" that it is.

what about "checked" or "scanned" or something like that?

regards
Werner



That would be untrue: AFAIK nobody really scans the plugins and the "trusted" users are the only one that can approve the plugins by themselves.

Please bear in mind that what that flag really means at the application level is that a "trusted" user can approve and publish his own plugins, in that sense we "trust" him.

So, "trusted" is the correct word, but we could stress the reasons why that user has been trusted instead of the condition itself, so, I suggest to add a brief sentence/tooltip whatever it works to explain why a user (in general: not that particular user) has been flagged as "trusted" (active member in the community with a proven record of plugin or core contributions etc. etc.).

Kind regards.


 
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:32 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Tom, thanks for your input and I'm surprised that you are not a
trusted author (thought that have been discussed a while back).
I was about to propose a pull request this morning with the new
wording but didn't because either "The author of this plugin is
trusted" or "Trusted Author" makes me feel comfortable. It looked to
me that those who do not have this tag are untrusted. And I'm afraid
this could harm their work and they do not deserve that.
So, if the main idea is to promote people that have a community
implication (and I guess we agree they deserve it), how about
"Community contributor"?

2017-09-08 14:27 GMT+02:00 Saber Razmjooei
<[hidden email]>:
> +1 for Tom to become a trusted author. In addition to the qgis2web plugin,
> Tom is a very active in QGIS UK usergroups.
>
> Cheers
> Saber
>
>
> On 8 September 2017 at 13:17, Luigi Pirelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to thrusted author
>>
>> side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
>> mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
>> Luigi Pirelli
>>
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>> * Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
>> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
>> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
>> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
>> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
>> *
>> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Tom,
>> >
>> > I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
>> > process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
>> > would help here?
>> >
>> > Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
>> > trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
>> > Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
>> > rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
>> > author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
>> > think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
>> > and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>> >
>> > Sidnote:
>> > I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
>> > know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
>> > community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
>> > there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>> >
>> > Matthias
>> >
>> > On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> >> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>> >>
>> >> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> >> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process,
>> >> it
>> >> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the
>> >> word
>> >> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In
>> >> fact,
>> >> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one
>> >> thing
>> >> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years
>> >> not
>> >> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me,
>> >> personally,
>> >> not to be trusted.
>> >>
>> >> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are
>> >> not
>> >> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the
>> >> point
>> >> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> >> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> >> general
>> >> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from:
>> >> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saber Razmjooei
> www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
> <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%297568%20129733" value="+447568129733" target="_blank">+44 (0)7568 129733
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



--
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

macho

Very good idea...

On 8 September 2017 3:16:55 pm Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Werner Macho <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

I like Community contributor (more than trusted author)
but have another addition
Contributor known by the community ..
But I think that distracts us from the plugins "tag" that it is.

what about "checked" or "scanned" or something like that?

regards
Werner



That would be untrue: AFAIK nobody really scans the plugins and the "trusted" users are the only one that can approve the plugins by themselves.

Please bear in mind that what that flag really means at the application level is that a "trusted" user can approve and publish his own plugins, in that sense we "trust" him.

So, "trusted" is the correct word, but we could stress the reasons why that user has been trusted instead of the condition itself, so, I suggest to add a brief sentence/tooltip whatever it works to explain why a user (in general: not that particular user) has been flagged as "trusted" (active member in the community with a proven record of plugin or core contributions etc. etc.).

Kind regards.


 
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:32 PM, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Tom, thanks for your input and I'm surprised that you are not a
trusted author (thought that have been discussed a while back).
I was about to propose a pull request this morning with the new
wording but didn't because either "The author of this plugin is
trusted" or "Trusted Author" makes me feel comfortable. It looked to
me that those who do not have this tag are untrusted. And I'm afraid
this could harm their work and they do not deserve that.
So, if the main idea is to promote people that have a community
implication (and I guess we agree they deserve it), how about
"Community contributor"?

2017-09-08 14:27 GMT+02:00 Saber Razmjooei
<[hidden email]>:
> +1 for Tom to become a trusted author. In addition to the qgis2web plugin,
> Tom is a very active in QGIS UK usergroups.
>
> Cheers
> Saber
>
>
> On 8 September 2017 at 13:17, Luigi Pirelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to thrusted author
>>
>> side +1 to trust Tom... can we use the same OSGeo charters memeber
>> mechanism to nominate thrusted authors?
>> Luigi Pirelli
>>
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>> * Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
>> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
>> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
>> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
>> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
>> *
>> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
>>
>> **************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> On 8 September 2017 at 13:45, Matthias Kuhn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Tom,
>> >
>> > I understand this sentiment very well. Do you think formalizing the
>> > process to become a "Trusted Author" and making it more transparent
>> > would help here?
>> >
>> > Your statement does not seems not to critizise the move of switching
>> > trust from plugins to authors. But more the "in-or-out" in general.
>> > Important here is, that the idea is to put more stress on the "in"
>> > rather than the "out" (by saying "trusted author" rather than "untrusted
>> > author"). If you have an idea how this can be made even more visible, I
>> > think there's a good chance that we can mitigate unwanted side-effects
>> > and potentially hard feelings of this better.
>> >
>> > Sidnote:
>> > I will immediately vote to make you a trusted author, we all very well
>> > know the work you've put into qgis2web and close relations with the
>> > community. While I think you should get the label anyway, I think
>> > there's a different discussion you wanted to trigger here.
>> >
>> > Matthias
>> >
>> > On 09/08/2017 01:29 PM, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> >> So it's not that you don't trust my work, it's that you don't trust me?
>> >>
>> >> As an untrusted plugin author, I should say that this makes little
>> >> difference. While I 100% understand the rationale behind this process,
>> >> it
>> >> still feels like a bit of a slap in the face. Perhaps the use of the
>> >> word
>> >> "trust", be it applied to plugin or author, is too loaded for me. In
>> >> fact,
>> >> transferring the usage to individuals makes it more galling - it's one
>> >> thing
>> >> for the work I have done voluntarily over the past three or four years
>> >> not
>> >> to be trusted by the core devs, but it's quite another for me,
>> >> personally,
>> >> not to be trusted.
>> >>
>> >> I of course understand that the inference is not that I and my work are
>> >> not
>> >> trusted. I simply worded that last sentence deliberately to make the
>> >> point
>> >> that this label, and its absence, seems arbitrary at best, possibly
>> >> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> >> general
>> >> and the QGIS core devs in particular, and at worst is insulting.
>> >>
>> >> Hope you understand - I feel the point had to be made.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----
>> >> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from:
>> >> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saber Razmjooei
> www.lutraconsulting.co.uk
> <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%297568%20129733" value="+447568129733" target="_blank">+44 (0)7568 129733
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



--
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Nyall Dawson
In reply to this post by Tom Chadwin
Hey Tom,

In my opinion you're a highly valued member of the QGIS community, so
I'm very keen to follow through on these points you've raised. Chances
are if YOU are feeling this way, there's likely many others who do too
but just wouldn't feel comfortable speaking up about it.

I'll leave aside the discussion about the plugin ecosystem, but I'd
like to discuss:

On 8 September 2017 at 21:29, Tom Chadwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> possibly
> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in general
> and the QGIS core devs in particular...

To begin: there's obviously no secret agenda or deliberate 'inner
circle' here, so any closed nature of the community has been an
accidental organic process vs a deliberate decision. I'm not going to
defend anything here, because the mere fact that you've brought up
this point is a clear indication that there IS an issue here, and
something we should discuss openly and try to improve!

So, if you feel comfortable doing this, can you (or any others who
have also felt this way) give some pointers on how we can 'break' this
and becoming a more welcoming community?

Nyall
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Tom Chadwin
Hello all

Sorry for opening this can of worms, and thanks to all of you for very kind
words. But obviously, let's move on from the personal to the general point,
not least to stop my looking as though I was fishing for compliments. I very
much was not.


Nyall Dawson wrote
>> possibly
>> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> general
>> and the QGIS core devs in particular...
>
> To begin: there's obviously no secret agenda or deliberate 'inner
> circle' here, so any closed nature of the community has been an
> accidental organic process vs a deliberate decision.

100%. Compared to other projects to which I've contributed, this is an
incredibly welcoming, supportive, and friendly community. I said "otherwise
seldom apparent" deliberately. I could probably have said "otherwise never
apparent". I could even broaden this out to the whole geo community - both
Leaflet and, back in the day, MGOS devs have always welcomed tentative and
initially nervous contributions from hobbyists.


Nyall Dawson wrote
> So, if you feel comfortable doing this, can you (or any others who
> have also felt this way) give some pointers on how we can 'break' this
> and becoming a more welcoming community?

So in that light, my point just refers to this issue. Again, I knew that the
issue I've raised was unintentional, so simply tweaking this process and
language will do the job.

Matthias and I discussed some possibilities off-list:

- label "core QGIS developer"
- label plugins which have testing/CI

I'll check back to see if I missed anything else.

Thanks for running with this discussion. It should have a moderately simple
solution - just haven't quite found it yet.

Thanks again

Tom




-----
Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Alessandro Pasotti-2

Sorry if I repeat myself, this is just to clarify what the "trusted" flag is, and why it was introduced.

The trusted flag has nothing to do with being a core dev or having CI/tests: it's a permission flag in the DB, tied to the user who "owns" the plugin (the maintainer).

When a new plugin is submitted, Paolo (please correct me if I'm wrong) checks the plugin for mandatory metadata and he makes a quick/superficial evaluation, if the plugin does not look particularly suspicious or misses some mandatory metadata he approves it straight away.

But the a.m. procedure is pointless and can be totally avoided if the plugin comes from a well known member of this community when there is "trust" because of proven record of good plugins or code contributions or personal knowledge, beers together in the greenhouses at night etc. etc.. 

So this is all what the "trusted" flag is about: skipping the boring and time/consuming procedure of approving plugins for the well-known members of this community (and the delay that it causes) .

Let me say it again:the only difference between a "trusted" user/author is that he can approve and publish the plugins by himself.

The problem started when we decided to advertise the "trusted" flag on the plugin manager, I see two options here:

1. go back to the pre-trusted times and hide that information from the plugin manager
2. reword/rephrase
3. add some other flags at the DB level (feel free to make PRs)

I would go for 2. but please keep the new sentence in sync with the real meaning of the "trusted" flag: I believe that all core developers should be "trusted" (just ask Paolo or any other admin and it's just a click) but I would not restrict the "trust" to core devs: there are many other members of this community that I'd give trust even if they are not core devs.





On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tom Chadwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello all

Sorry for opening this can of worms, and thanks to all of you for very kind
words. But obviously, let's move on from the personal to the general point,
not least to stop my looking as though I was fishing for compliments. I very
much was not.


Nyall Dawson wrote
>> possibly
>> reinforces the (otherwise seldom apparent) clique nature of devs in
>> general
>> and the QGIS core devs in particular...
>
> To begin: there's obviously no secret agenda or deliberate 'inner
> circle' here, so any closed nature of the community has been an
> accidental organic process vs a deliberate decision.

100%. Compared to other projects to which I've contributed, this is an
incredibly welcoming, supportive, and friendly community. I said "otherwise
seldom apparent" deliberately. I could probably have said "otherwise never
apparent". I could even broaden this out to the whole geo community - both
Leaflet and, back in the day, MGOS devs have always welcomed tentative and
initially nervous contributions from hobbyists.


Nyall Dawson wrote
> So, if you feel comfortable doing this, can you (or any others who
> have also felt this way) give some pointers on how we can 'break' this
> and becoming a more welcoming community?

So in that light, my point just refers to this issue. Again, I knew that the
issue I've raised was unintentional, so simply tweaking this process and
language will do the job.

Matthias and I discussed some possibilities off-list:

- label "core QGIS developer"
- label plugins which have testing/CI

I'll check back to see if I missed anything else.

Thanks for running with this discussion. It should have a moderately simple
solution - just haven't quite found it yet.

Thanks again

Tom




-----
Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
_______________________________________________
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



--
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

Richard Duivenvoorde
On 09-09-17 10:42, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:

>
> Sorry if I repeat myself, this is just to clarify what the "trusted"
> flag is, and why it was introduced.
>
> The trusted flag has nothing to do with being a core dev or having
> CI/tests: it's a permission flag in the DB, tied to the user who "owns"
> the plugin (the maintainer).
>
> When a new plugin is submitted, Paolo (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> checks the plugin for mandatory metadata and he makes a
> quick/superficial evaluation, if the plugin does not look particularly
> suspicious or misses some mandatory metadata he approves it straight away.
>
> But the a.m. procedure is pointless and can be totally avoided if the
> plugin comes from a well known member of this community when there is
> "trust" because of proven record of good plugins or code contributions
> or personal knowledge, beers together in the greenhouses at night etc.
> etc.. 
>
> So this is all what the "trusted" flag is about: skipping the boring and
> time/consuming procedure of approving plugins for the well-known members
> of this community (and the delay that it causes) .
>
> Let me say it again:the only difference between a "trusted" user/author
> is that he can approve and publish the plugins by himself.
>
> The problem started when we decided to advertise the "trusted" flag on
> the plugin manager, I see two options here:
>
> 1. go back to the pre-trusted times and hide that information from the
> plugin manager
> 2. reword/rephrase
> 3. add some other flags at the DB level (feel free to make PRs)
>
> I would go for 2. but please keep the new sentence in sync with the real
> meaning of the "trusted" flag: I believe that all core developers should
> be "trusted" (just ask Paolo or any other admin and it's just a click)
> but I would not restrict the "trust" to core devs: there are many other
> members of this community that I'd give trust even if they are not core
> devs.

Thanks Alessandro for this refreshment,

looks like we are two things mixing up here;
A) making approving of plugins easier by giving label to AUTHORS
B) promoting/giving preference to certain 'wellknown' PLUGINS

And actually we have mechanisms for both!

For A we have this 'trusted author' label to make Paolo's work easier
(and let's make it clear: trust IS often a personal thing, which is hard
to hand over to others).

For B we have the 'Starring' mechanism: at
http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/ AND in the plugin manager
you can 'vote' for a plugin by clicking on one of the stars there.

Given that most users actually do not care too much about the personal
trust between authors and community/admins, I would go for Alessondro's
first option:

1) remove that coloring/sentence from the manager (as it does not prove
anything about the quality of the plugin too)

2) give the 'Starring' of plugins more weight in the applications:
- make the 'Stars' more visible in the plugin manager by moving them to
the top of the information in the plugin dialog
- make it more clear that you can VOTE stars for a plugin in the plugin
manager
- make the stars visible when you search for plugins (now only the names
are shown):
http://plugins.qgis.org/search/?q=pdok

IF somebody wants to dive into the plugin Django application, maybe we
should we could maybe refine these mechanisms (like make it only
possible to add stars when you are logged in or so?), but looking at
them now, we actually had everything pretty well laid out?

Regards,

Richard Duivenvoorde


_______________________________________________
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: Reword "Trusted Plugin" --> "Trusted Plugin Author"?

pcav
In reply to this post by Tom Chadwin
Hi,
Tom is trusted.
All the best.



--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
_______________________________________________
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