Hi, I also prefer RFC.
Andreas Am 02.09.2014 13:06, schrieb Marco Hugentobler: > +1 for RFC, since universally understood. > > Regards, > Marco > > On 02.09.2014 15:01, Larry Shaffer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need to start using the new QEP/RFC setup (today actually), >> specifically for some sponsored work. I don't want the sponsor to >> think the QGIS project is indecisive, so I propose a vote on the >> naming of the process, since there is some disagreement. >> >> QEP or RFC? >> >> +0 for QEP (I'm fine with RFC, as well). >> >> I think RFC is a bit dry, though universally understood. QEP should >> not confuse the public, since the dev group actually interested in >> using them is fairly small. QEP is clearly spelled out in the repo >> name. QEP shows a renewed configuration over the older, existing RFC >> process. >> >> Lastly, QEP pays homage to Python's PEP. I think QGIS would not be as >> popular as it is today if it were not for Python integration. >> >> Regards, >> >> Larry Shaffer >> Dakota Cartography >> Black Hills, South Dakota >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > -- > Dr. Marco Hugentobler > Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions > Weberstrasse 5, CH-8004 Zürich, Switzerland > [email protected] http://www.sourcepole.ch > Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee > > > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
