[QGIS-Developer] grant proposal

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

[QGIS-Developer] grant proposal

3nids
Hi all,

I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I don't have perfect solutions to propose.

First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? Probably not.
The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code.

It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to be objective and mostly politically quite risky.

This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its implementation?
 
Cheers,

Denis

_______________________________________________
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: grant proposal

Alessandro Pasotti-2


On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I don't have perfect solutions to propose.

First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? Probably not.
The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code.

It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to be objective and mostly politically quite risky.

This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its implementation?

Denis,

I second this last proposal.

Thanks for raising the issue.

--
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: grant proposal

DelazJ

Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:38, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :


On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I don't have perfect solutions to propose.

First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? Probably not.
The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code.

It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to be objective and mostly politically quite risky.

This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its implementation?

Denis,

I second this last proposal.

Thanks for raising the issue.

--
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

_______________________________________________
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: grant proposal

Nyall Dawson
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 17:46, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For the record, http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grant-application-suggestions-for-next-time-td5368078.html from last year

Oh good - thought I was going crazy with deja vu here. Turns out it's
just Denis who's going crazy ;)

Nyall

>
> Regards,
> Harrissou
>
> Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:38, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I don't have perfect solutions to propose.
>>>
>>> First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? Probably not.
>>> The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code.
>>>
>>> It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to be objective and mostly politically quite risky.
>>>
>>> This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its implementation?
>>
>>
>> Denis,
>>
>> I second this last proposal.
>>
>> Thanks for raising the issue.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: grant proposal

3nids
Indeed going a bit crazy ;)

Looking at the document mentioned in the thread [0], it would be good if we could at least get the QEP requirement written in stone.

For the rest, I am a bit puzzled on the solutions. Maybe having only QEP already accepted would be an option, although being other issues such as timing for review.

Cheers,
Denis



Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 10:59, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 17:46, DelazJ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For the record, http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grant-application-suggestions-for-next-time-td5368078.html from last year

Oh good - thought I was going crazy with deja vu here. Turns out it's
just Denis who's going crazy ;)

Nyall

>
> Regards,
> Harrissou
>
> Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:38, Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I don't have perfect solutions to propose.
>>>
>>> First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? Probably not.
>>> The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code.
>>>
>>> It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to be objective and mostly politically quite risky.
>>>
>>> This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its implementation?
>>
>>
>> Denis,
>>
>> I second this last proposal.
>>
>> Thanks for raising the issue.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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