2015-11-08 22:36 GMT+01:00 Tim Sutton <t...@qgis.org>: > Hi > > On 06 Nov 2015, at 19:40, Alex M <tech_...@wildintellect.com> wrote: > > > 8< ————— snip ------------ > > If a company wants something that makes it into Core, it should be > pre-approved via a QEP. The fallback should be a plugin. > > I caution the use of $ to directly influence the QEP review and Pull > Request reviews. Some sort of bounty pool, allowing core devs to get a > stipend for clearing big reviews might be an option. So companies can > contribute to QGIS and that money can go to expedite all QEP and Code > reviews, but not a specific one. > > > > Agreed -We need salaried QGIS.ORG <http://qgis.org> staff that can review > these things independently of who it comes from or if / how they have > financed QGIS. > > Regards > > Tim > >
I generally agree, but I would prefer if the salaried QGIS.ORG staff would only act as a coordinator in managing the review queue coming from not-core devs to guarantee scheduled times (since the core-devs go into the quarantine queue with automatic approval if no one raise exceptions) and should delegate/outsource the code review job to the core devs (or externally if no one is available) and only if/when needed (i.e. because of lacking volunteers). We are not moving from a volunteer based project, do we? I also wish to thank Hugo for starting this topic, it's not easy to talk about this, since it crosses personal choices, philosophical believes, economical interests etc... -- Alessandro Pasotti w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
