Re: Environmental policy

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

Re: Environmental policy

Nyall Dawson
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:20, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> following the interesting proposal by Andreas, I'm here starting a
> discussion about QGIS.ORG environmental policy:

Upfront: Thank you Andreas and Paolo for kick-starting this
discussion. From the viewpoint of a resident of one of the countries
currently most affected by climate change, yet with one of the most
backward, short-sighted governments imaginable -- it's clearly NOT
going to be our governing bodies which will lead the war on climate
change. In my view it IS the responsibility of smaller groups like
QGIS to do whatever we possibly can to mitigate the change.

> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?

Why not? We do have some power here, in that we provide a desirable,
mature, well respected product. The QGIS project adopting an explicit
environmental policy (in whatever form that takes) does give a good
message to other projects and even to our users that this is a serious
issue.

> * 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?

Here's a point I'm stuck on. I strongly believe that these in-person
meetings are crucial for QGIS, and have gone a long way to promote the
growth, friendliness, and welcoming nature of the community. Removing
them **would** harm the QGIS project. It's been a number of years now
since I've been able to attend one in person, and I'm feeling the
disconnect from the community as a result.

I REALLY want to attend the Nodebo meetup/conference later this year,
but at the same time I'm consciously aware of how bad the impact of
the flight from Australia to Europe is (and there's zero alternative
options available for this). I'm honestly not sure what the right
choice for me to do is here...

Nyall





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

Re: Environmental policy

geomenke
I think this is a great and timely discussion to be having. Paolo and Andreas thanks for starting the ball rolling.

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
Yes I think this would be fantastic for the project and would set a nice precedent. +1 from me.

* 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?

I think the face to face meetings are really important to developing community. I think the frequency works well with the release schedule so I wouldn't be in favor of reducing it. Personally attending the user conferences has been very important. I have formed some lasting personal and professional relationships with people on other continents by attending. It is impossible for me to attend without getting on a plane, so it's always a hard decision, but some air travel in moderation is still worthwhile. I hope to be in Nødebo and would be willing to commit to offsetting the carbon in someway. I've been thinking of how to incorporate carbon offsets into my business too.

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

As it stands, it is possible for smaller regional meetings to be organized as was done in Noosa.

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

Gently push - having this as a suggestion in a policy is a good start.

  * 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

It would not be difficult to estimate the carbon footprint of a meeting, and then make some sort of donation to try to offset that.   

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

No

Kurt Menke
Bird’s Eye View


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

Re: Environmental policy

ghtmtt
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Hi all,

let me also share my thoughts here, veeeeery quickly.

As an environmental scientist I pay a lot of attention to all my daily
actions, but without being paranoiac.

I trust that we are smart people and if we want to have an environmental
policy, I'd like to have a kind of "these are our suggestions, please
try to follow them". But not force people.

If I have to travel 16 hours by train to travel to an HF for 2 days and
traveling back other 16 hours (spending €€€) than it is very likely that
we will loose people to come. I know that I can work on train, but
sometimes I have to be in a certain place to work (e.g. training).

By the other [provocation]: is really a train powered by nuclear power
plants more environmental friendly than a flight?

To conclude. I'm very happy when I'm able to attend an HF (and drink
some beers with all of you), so we can think to lower to just one longer
HF per year (ass already suggested).

Just my 2 cents

See you soon ;)

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

Re: Environmental policy

Andreas Neumann-3
Hi Matteo,

I agree with most of your comments, but have one reply for your comment on trains running on nuclear power:

In countries, where you have synchronized time tables (most countries have them meanwhile), where the trains always leave shortly after the hour and half-hour, you need most energy when all the trains throughout Switzerland leave their stations (only hydro and gaz power stations can meet those short-term peak - nuclear plants can only generate bandwidth energy, no peak energies). Once the trains are rolling, energy demand is a lot lower. For such situations, nuclear with constant energy production is not very useful. In Switzerland, the train system has an extensive network of hydropower stations (Pumpspeicherkraftwerke) where they can open the gates to exactly meet the peak energy demands according the train schedules every day. For this reason, trains typically run on hydro or gaz power. Also, when trains slow down or run down a slope, they contribute a significant amount of energy back in to the train grid system, something most cars (apart from hybrid/electric/plugin hybrid) still don't do, let alone planes ...

Greetings,
Andreas



On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:03, matteo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

let me also share my thoughts here, veeeeery quickly.

As an environmental scientist I pay a lot of attention to all my daily
actions, but without being paranoiac.

I trust that we are smart people and if we want to have an environmental
policy, I'd like to have a kind of "these are our suggestions, please
try to follow them". But not force people.

If I have to travel 16 hours by train to travel to an HF for 2 days and
traveling back other 16 hours (spending €€€) than it is very likely that
we will loose people to come. I know that I can work on train, but
sometimes I have to be in a certain place to work (e.g. training).

By the other [provocation]: is really a train powered by nuclear power
plants more environmental friendly than a flight?

To conclude. I'm very happy when I'm able to attend an HF (and drink
some beers with all of you), so we can think to lower to just one longer
HF per year (ass already suggested).

Just my 2 cents

See you soon ;)

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


--

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)

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

Re: Environmental policy

Tim Sutton-6
Hi Matteo and friends

For me this discussion is more about optics - as a project we are in a position to show leadership and raise awareness. We don’t need to force anyone to do anything and I think we all realise climate change (and even if you are a denialist, the principle of wise, sustainable resource use) needs urgent attention and we are in a position to set a good example. So if we can agree on the basics maybe we can come up with some practical, constructive ways to reduce our own footprint (as a project) and encourage others to reduce their environmental footprints. 

Maybe like we are striving to OGC certification, we can also consider getting adherence to something like ISO 14000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_14000). Although I guess that doesn’t tick my ’simple’ box :-P

I wonder if we can’t also consider ‘low power’ QGIS mode where we consume the minimum amount of energy on the device QGIS is deployed on? Maybe a nice fat ’Save the environment’ (runs QGIS on 1 cpu) ‘Kill the environment’ (runs on all cpus + GPU) toggle switch in the status bar would be a cool addition in 2020? 

Regards

Tim

On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:15, Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Matteo,

I agree with most of your comments, but have one reply for your comment on trains running on nuclear power:

In countries, where you have synchronized time tables (most countries have them meanwhile), where the trains always leave shortly after the hour and half-hour, you need most energy when all the trains throughout Switzerland leave their stations (only hydro and gaz power stations can meet those short-term peak - nuclear plants can only generate bandwidth energy, no peak energies). Once the trains are rolling, energy demand is a lot lower. For such situations, nuclear with constant energy production is not very useful. In Switzerland, the train system has an extensive network of hydropower stations (Pumpspeicherkraftwerke) where they can open the gates to exactly meet the peak energy demands according the train schedules every day. For this reason, trains typically run on hydro or gaz power. Also, when trains slow down or run down a slope, they contribute a significant amount of energy back in to the train grid system, something most cars (apart from hybrid/electric/plugin hybrid) still don't do, let alone planes ...

Greetings,
Andreas



On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:03, matteo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

let me also share my thoughts here, veeeeery quickly.

As an environmental scientist I pay a lot of attention to all my daily
actions, but without being paranoiac.

I trust that we are smart people and if we want to have an environmental
policy, I'd like to have a kind of "these are our suggestions, please
try to follow them". But not force people.

If I have to travel 16 hours by train to travel to an HF for 2 days and
traveling back other 16 hours (spending €€€) than it is very likely that
we will loose people to come. I know that I can work on train, but
sometimes I have to be in a certain place to work (e.g. training).

By the other [provocation]: is really a train powered by nuclear power
plants more environmental friendly than a flight?

To conclude. I'm very happy when I'm able to attend an HF (and drink
some beers with all of you), so we can think to lower to just one longer
HF per year (ass already suggested).

Just my 2 cents

See you soon ;)

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


--

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 




---

Tim Sutton





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

Re: Environmental policy

Even Rouault-2
> I wonder if we can’t also consider ‘low power’ QGIS mode where we consume
> the minimum amount of energy on the device QGIS is deployed on? Maybe a
> nice fat ’Save the environment’ (runs QGIS on 1 cpu) ‘Kill the environment’
> (runs on all cpus + GPU) toggle switch in the status bar would be a cool
> addition in 2020?

Interesting, but it is far from being obvious to me. I wouldn't be surprised
if the results were actually the inverse.

I suspect the total power consumption of a CPU must be something like:

total_power = constant + number_vcpus_active * per_vcpu_power

It must be horribly more complicated than that. In particular for hyper-
threaded siblings. There might also perhaps be a over consumption factor in
having serveral vCPUs active?

So assuming that the parallelized algorithms scale close to linearly (and are
not stuck in busy loops in spinlocks), I'd bet that for a given CPU, you will
consume (a bit) less in making all vCPUs busy.

Let's assume that constant = 1 W and per_vcpu_power = 10 W, that the CPU has 2
cores and that this runs in 1 sec with this 2 cores (and that there's no over
consumption due to 2 vCPU busy):

energy = 1 * (1 + 2 * 10) = 21 W.s

If using just 1 core, then you'll need 2 seconds to do the same job:

energy = 2 * (1 + 10) = 22 W.s

The constant might actually not come from the CPU itself, but more from all
other electronic components (RAM, screen, etc.) making the computer drain
power, while you wait for the result.

The use of the GPU can potentially save power if submitting it to it
computations for which its efficiency is > CPU. After all, taking a
provocative example, if professional bitcoin miners use dedicated hardware,
that's because it saves energy rather than doing the same on general purpose
CPUs...

A 'Save the environment' mode could probably be disabling pre-fetching of the
tiles around the displayed area. But I'm not even sure. It would certainly
require doing actual power measurements to avoid the risk of false claims...

Doing computations with a coarser resolution would certainly help.

Even

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

Re: Environmental policy

Jonathan Moules-4
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6

Hi Tim,

I'd say it can be more pragmatic than just "optics" by showing leadership through example. Some of the original suggestions are things that can be implemented to actually achieve something by the project. For example, project supplied food as only vegan (or even just veggie); or the project only funding travel if it's sustainable if there's a sustainable options. Then if folks insist on steak and/or flying, there's nothing to stop them, they just have to fund it themselves/get their own lunch etc.

Low power mode - interesting idea, but would QGIS benefit from this? I suspect it's more complex than one/many CPUs. I.e. the GPU is usually much more power efficient than the CPU at some tasks; or doing stuff in parallel across many cores quickly can use less power than doing the same task consecutively on a single core (especially on a modern CPU like a Ryzen which will "Turbo" boost that single core in such cases). That said, from a user's perspective there does seem to be scope for optimisation.

Cheers,

Jonathan

On 2020-01-24 18:26, Tim Sutton wrote:
Hi Matteo and friends

For me this discussion is more about optics - as a project we are in a position to show leadership and raise awareness. We don’t need to force anyone to do anything and I think we all realise climate change (and even if you are a denialist, the principle of wise, sustainable resource use) needs urgent attention and we are in a position to set a good example. So if we can agree on the basics maybe we can come up with some practical, constructive ways to reduce our own footprint (as a project) and encourage others to reduce their environmental footprints. 

Maybe like we are striving to OGC certification, we can also consider getting adherence to something like ISO 14000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_14000 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_14000>). Although I guess that doesn’t tick my ’simple’ box :-P

I wonder if we can’t also consider ‘low power’ QGIS mode where we consume the minimum amount of energy on the device QGIS is deployed on? Maybe a nice fat ’Save the environment’ (runs QGIS on 1 cpu) ‘Kill the environment’ (runs on all cpus + GPU) toggle switch in the status bar would be a cool addition in 2020? 

Regards

Tim

On 24 Jan 2020, at 10:15, Andreas Neumann [hidden email] wrote:

Hi Matteo, 

I agree with most of your comments, but have one reply for your comment on trains running on nuclear power:

In countries, where you have synchronized time tables (most countries have them meanwhile), where the trains always leave shortly after the hour and half-hour, you need most energy when all the trains throughout Switzerland leave their stations (only hydro and gaz power stations can meet those short-term peak - nuclear plants can only generate bandwidth energy, no peak energies). Once the trains are rolling, energy demand is a lot lower. For such situations, nuclear with constant energy production is not very useful. In Switzerland, the train system has an extensive network of hydropower stations (Pumpspeicherkraftwerke) where they can open the gates to exactly meet the peak energy demands according the train schedules every day. For this reason, trains typically run on hydro or gaz power. Also, when trains slow down or run down a slope, they contribute a significant amount of energy back in to the train grid system, something most cars (apart from hybrid/electric/plugin hybrid) still don't do, let alone planes ...

Greetings,
Andreas



On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:03, matteo <[hidden email] [hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

let me also share my thoughts here, veeeeery quickly.

As an environmental scientist I pay a lot of attention to all my daily
actions, but without being paranoiac.

I trust that we are smart people and if we want to have an environmental
policy, I'd like to have a kind of "these are our suggestions, please
try to follow them". But not force people.

If I have to travel 16 hours by train to travel to an HF for 2 days and
traveling back other 16 hours (spending €€€) than it is very likely that
we will loose people to come. I know that I can work on train, but
sometimes I have to be in a certain place to work (e.g. training).

By the other [provocation]: is really a train powered by nuclear power
plants more environmental friendly than a flight?

To conclude. I'm very happy when I'm able to attend an HF (and drink
some beers with all of you), so we can think to lower to just one longer
HF per year (ass already suggested).

Just my 2 cents

See you soon ;)

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

-- 

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG <http://qgis.org/> board member (treasurer)
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
 




---

Tim Sutton
[hidden email]






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

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

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
In reply to this post by Nyall Dawson
Hi all,
I think now it's time to vote. Probably several participants to hte next
HF are waiting for our decision before booking their tickets.
Based on the discussion I'm rephrasing the questions as follows.

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
  * yes, as an independent document
  * yes, as a part of our social contract/vision/etc
  * no

* how many in-person meetings do we want per year?
  * 0
  * 1
  * 2

* do we want general meetings, or a series of smaller ones in sync, so
to minimize total movements and promote participation across the globe?
  * general
  * local

* do we want the participants to travel by train instead of plane?
  * yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low
impact means
  * yes, reimbursement will be allowed for trains and other low impact
means; flying will be reimbursed only if
    * distance is more than a fixed amount (e.g. 1,500 km)
    * train will take significantly longer (e.g. 10 h) than flying
    * cost will be significantly lower (e.g. 300 €)
  * yes, we will suggest all participants to minimize their impact,
leaving the choice to individuals, and reimbursing anyway

I believe all major points are listed here; if not, please suggest
improvements.
Cheers.

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

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
Hi all,
sorry to insit, but I think we should decide soon, as we are getting
close to the date, and I see many did not book their travel yet:
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/24th-Contributor-Meeting-in-'s-Hertogenbosch
BTW, I'm not sure we can apply this decision retrospectively: what to do
if someone has already booked a flight?
Cheers.

Il 26/01/20 16:12, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto:

> Hi all,
> I think now it's time to vote. Probably several participants to hte next
> HF are waiting for our decision before booking their tickets.
> Based on the discussion I'm rephrasing the questions as follows.
>
> * do we need an explicit environmental policy?
>   * yes, as an independent document
>   * yes, as a part of our social contract/vision/etc
>   * no
>
> * how many in-person meetings do we want per year?
>   * 0
>   * 1
>   * 2
>
> * do we want general meetings, or a series of smaller ones in sync, so
> to minimize total movements and promote participation across the globe?
>   * general
>   * local
>
> * do we want the participants to travel by train instead of plane?
>   * yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low
> impact means
>   * yes, reimbursement will be allowed for trains and other low impact
> means; flying will be reimbursed only if
>     * distance is more than a fixed amount (e.g. 1,500 km)
>     * train will take significantly longer (e.g. 10 h) than flying
>     * cost will be significantly lower (e.g. 300 €)
>   * yes, we will suggest all participants to minimize their impact,
> leaving the choice to individuals, and reimbursing anyway
>
> I believe all major points are listed here; if not, please suggest
> improvements.
> Cheers.
>

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

Re: Environmental policy

Andreas Neumann-4

Hi Paolo,

Thanks for preparing this vote.

The following things are unclear to me:

Who is going to vote? PSC? Voting members? Anyone interested?

If it is the voting members, I think we need a different platform for voting than this mailing list. If it is PSC, then yes, we can vote here on the mailing list and summarize the decisions.

Thanks for the clarification,

Andreas

On 2020-01-28 09:08, Paolo Cavallini wrote:

Hi all,
sorry to insit, but I think we should decide soon, as we are getting
close to the date, and I see many did not book their travel yet:
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/24th-Contributor-Meeting-in-'s-Hertogenbosch
BTW, I'm not sure we can apply this decision retrospectively: what to do
if someone has already booked a flight?
Cheers.

Il 26/01/20 16:12, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto:
Hi all,
I think now it's time to vote. Probably several participants to hte next
HF are waiting for our decision before booking their tickets.
Based on the discussion I'm rephrasing the questions as follows.

* do we need an explicit environmental policy?
  * yes, as an independent document
  * yes, as a part of our social contract/vision/etc
  * no

* how many in-person meetings do we want per year?
  * 0
  * 1
  * 2

* do we want general meetings, or a series of smaller ones in sync, so
to minimize total movements and promote participation across the globe?
  * general
  * local

* do we want the participants to travel by train instead of plane?
  * yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low
impact means
  * yes, reimbursement will be allowed for trains and other low impact
means; flying will be reimbursed only if
    * distance is more than a fixed amount (e.g. 1,500 km)
    * train will take significantly longer (e.g. 10 h) than flying
    * cost will be significantly lower (e.g. 300 €)
  * yes, we will suggest all participants to minimize their impact,
leaving the choice to individuals, and reimbursing anyway

I believe all major points are listed here; if not, please suggest
improvements.
Cheers.



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

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
Hi Andreas,
thanks for the fast reply.

Il 28/01/20 09:11, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

> Who is going to vote? PSC? Voting members? Anyone interested?

PSC, I believe. Why should it be different from other decisions?
Cheers.

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

Re: Environmental policy

Alessandro Pasotti-2


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:14 AM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Andreas,
thanks for the fast reply.

Il 28/01/20 09:11, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

> Who is going to vote? PSC? Voting members? Anyone interested?

PSC, I believe. Why should it be different from other decisions?


IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an ordinary administration topic.

I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of decisions.

Cheers

--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it

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

Re: Environmental policy

pcav


Il 28/01/20 09:17, Alessandro Pasotti ha scritto:
> IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an
> ordinary administration topic.
>
> I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of
> decisions.

OK, in this case I propose to run next HF as usual, and postpone the
implementation to the next one, otherwise we'll put a number of
participants in a difficult position due to the time necessary for a
decision.
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

Andreas Neumann-4

We can run this voting through the voting members during the AGM.

For the current contributor meeting: we can only give guidelines/recommendations. It's everyone's individual decision.

Thanks,

Andreas

On 2020-01-28 09:20, Paolo Cavallini wrote:



Il 28/01/20 09:17, Alessandro Pasotti ha scritto:
IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an
ordinary administration topic.

I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of
decisions.

OK, in this case I propose to run next HF as usual, and postpone the
implementation to the next one, otherwise we'll put a number of
participants in a difficult position due to the time necessary for a
decision.
Cheers.



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

Re: Environmental policy

pcav
OK, so if everyone in the PSC agrees we can proceed as outlined, and
announce publicly. One warning however: most voters in AGM do not
participate in HF, so I'm not 100% sure it is fair to let them decide
about an extra burden on the participants.
Cheers.

Il 28/01/20 09:34, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:

> We can run this voting through the voting members during the AGM.
>
> For the current contributor meeting: we can only give
> guidelines/recommendations. It's everyone's individual decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2020-01-28 09:20, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Il 28/01/20 09:17, Alessandro Pasotti ha scritto:
>>> IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an
>>> ordinary administration topic.
>>>
>>> I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of
>>> decisions.
>>
>> OK, in this case I propose to run next HF as usual, and postpone the
>> implementation to the next one, otherwise we'll put a number of
>> participants in a difficult position due to the time necessary for a
>> decision.
>> Cheers.
>
>

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

Re: Environmental policy

Lene Fischer
In reply to this post by pcav
I can only point out that travel by train in Denmark both are very slow and expensive. At the moment due to building bridges and network, part of train net are exchanged by bus.

So for the Summer Hack it can be very limiting if travel is by train....

Kind regards
Lene


Lene Fischer
Associate Professor

University of Copenhagen
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
Forest and Landscape College
Nødebovej 77a
3480 Fredensborg

MOB +45 40115084
[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: Qgis-psc <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Paolo Cavallini
Sent: 28. januar 2020 09:21
To: Alessandro Pasotti <[hidden email]>
Cc: qgis-psc <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Qgis-psc] Environmental policy



Il 28/01/20 09:17, Alessandro Pasotti ha scritto:
> IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an
> ordinary administration topic.
>
> I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of
> decisions.

OK, in this case I propose to run next HF as usual, and postpone the implementation to the next one, otherwise we'll put a number of participants in a difficult position due to the time necessary for a decision.
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Environmental policy

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

Happy to put the questions you laid out to the vote Paolo, thanks.

Regards

Tim

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:34 AM Andreas Neumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

We can run this voting through the voting members during the AGM.

For the current contributor meeting: we can only give guidelines/recommendations. It's everyone's individual decision.

Thanks,

Andreas

On 2020-01-28 09:20, Paolo Cavallini wrote:



Il 28/01/20 09:17, Alessandro Pasotti ha scritto:
IMO because it's about the project public policy: it's not just an
ordinary administration topic.

I think a broader consensus would be nice to have for this kind of
decisions.

OK, in this case I propose to run next HF as usual, and postpone the
implementation to the next one, otherwise we'll put a number of
participants in a difficult position due to the time necessary for a
decision.
Cheers.


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


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Sutton
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
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial

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

Re: Environmental policy

Anita Graser
In reply to this post by pcav


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:37 AM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, so if everyone in the PSC agrees we can proceed as outlined, and
announce publicly. One warning however: most voters in AGM do not
participate in HF, so I'm not 100% sure it is fair to let them decide
about an extra burden on the participants.

+1 for letting the AGM decide.

However, I think the option "yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low impact means" needs a qualifier for people from other continents than the hackfest location. Otherwise, we basically ban them and I don't think that's our intention.

Regards,
Anita





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

Re: Environmental policy

Tim Sutton-6
Hi


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:16 AM Anita Graser <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 9:37 AM Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, so if everyone in the PSC agrees we can proceed as outlined, and
announce publicly. One warning however: most voters in AGM do not
participate in HF, so I'm not 100% sure it is fair to let them decide
about an extra burden on the participants.

+1 for letting the AGM decide.

However, I think the option "yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low impact means" needs a qualifier for people from other continents than the hackfest location. Otherwise, we basically ban them and I don't think that's our intention.

Isn't that covered by the 1500km distance threshold that Andreas originally proposed?

Regards

Tim


 

Regards,
Anita




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


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Sutton
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
Tim is a member of the QGIS Project Steering Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kartoza is a merger between Linfiniti and Afrispatial

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

Re: Environmental policy

Anita Graser


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:24 AM Tim Sutton <[hidden email]> wrote:
However, I think the option "yes, reimbursement will be allowed only for trains and other low impact means" needs a qualifier for people from other continents than the hackfest location. Otherwise, we basically ban them and I don't think that's our intention.

Isn't that covered by the 1500km distance threshold that Andreas originally proposed?

I was looking at the questions in Paolo's mail from  Sun, Jan 26, 4:12 PM

 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
12