Yes, that would be ideal. But do we have enough money for that ? And is it a full time job ?
Or to put it another way: what is the budget we can assign for this task ? On 09/11/2015 23:59, Nathan Woodrow wrote: > The main problem I see in having a formal pay to review/merge model, no > matter the scale, is that it is a pay to win model no matter how to > goes. If you have the money you can pay someone to push it though > quicker which doesn't give others the same ability if they don't have > the cash. > > Personally the only way I can see this model working is if we have a > full time dev for the project that can review most PRs, or the QGIS.ORG > <http://QGIS.ORG> board can allocate funds to a core dev to review a set > of PRs. This way the project is in control and not "Hey X, I have a > stack of cash here. Be a buddy and merge my stuff for me will ya" > > I am streamlining the QEP process so that the whole think is quicker and > faster to do. > > - Nathan > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Hugo Mercier <hugo.merc...@oslandia.com > <mailto:hugo.merc...@oslandia.com>> wrote: > > On 09/11/2015 12:23, Alessandro Pasotti wrote: > > 2015-11-09 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com > <mailto:nyall.daw...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:nyall.daw...@gmail.com <mailto:nyall.daw...@gmail.com>>>: > > > > > > > The way I read this is that THEY would have to pay for their > > contribution to be reviewed. > > > > Nyall > > > > > > > > Only if nobody volunteers to review that for free. > > > Yes. Or to put it differently: only if THEY want a guarantee on > acceptability / decision delay > > > > > > To address 2, the QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG> > will ask if somebody is > > volunteering to review the code in a certain time (and keep the money > > for the project in that case) an hire a core dev to do the code review > > in case no one is available (still keeping part of the money for the > > internal expenses). > > > > I agree. But I am pretty sure if it is known there is money for a > review, nobody would like to review it for free (and it would make > sense). So I am not sure about the first part of your "if" :) > > I also think it could generalize to QEP reviews as well. > > > This is not killing voluntary work, provides some additional funds for > > QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> <http://QGIS.ORG>, reward core devs > (and feeds their children) > > and moreover guarantee certain times and a clear and transparent path > > for new features approval process to not-core devs. > > +1 > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer