Thank you for raising this Andreas, What I wonder is to which degree the people/companies behind a proposal should be considered. In particular about:
* Their history within the project * how much they did before for the project. I think that a grant can not only have a direct impact by making a particular project happen but also an indirect multiplier effect by keeping people motivated to stay on the project. * Volunteer time * Grant money could compensate for volunteer time spent by some people. And foster the multiplier effect again. * Their suitability for a particular job * How much they did in this area before and therefore can be expected to successfully accomplish the job. In particular I think we should pay attention to not attract individuals that only pop up when there's money to be spent from the project and then disappear again. Regards Matthias On 09/22/2016 08:14 AM, Neumann, Andreas wrote: > Dear QGIS users, developers, voting members and user group representatives, > > As you may have noticed, there is a first round of a QGIS grant program, > fueled by the donations and sponsorship money we received in the past > months. Tim Sutton, chair of the QGIS project, has publicized this > program repeatedly on several channels. > > The good thing is that we got some very good proposals. In total 18 > proposals, adding up to a total grant sum of 101 k €. You can see all > proposals > at > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B__vDnQXCKiwYTIyWmRSbi1hMWM/view?usp%3Dsharing&sa=D&ust=1474526025402000&usg=AFQjCNFhp43Lkxw3aBCed9-9luJpnR0oWg > > Please note that we can only spend 20k € in this first round. So there > are tough decisions to make. Note that proposals that can't make it in > the first round, can be kept in a waiting list and may apply again in > the next round of a grants program. If a proposal can't be accepted in > the first round, this doesn't mean it isn't valuable and useful to the > QGIS.ORG project. > > The QGIS PSC will honor the opinion of the voting members, the OSGEO > representative and the user group representatives on how to spend this > limited money wisely. Alltogether a group of currently 27 people (13 > qgis user group represenatives, 13 community voting members, 1 OSGEO > representative). This is kind of the "parliament" of the QGIS project > when it comes to such decisions. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Now comes my personal position/opinion - note that this is not the > official opinion of the QGIS.ORG board. > > I would personally welcome, if this round of the QGIS grants program > could focus on the QGIS 3.0 release. > > I personally also think that the QGIS grants program, at least at the > current time, should not pay for development of new features (at least > not features visible in the GUI for the users). These features can > be "relatively easy" funded by companies and government organizations > out there. So our limited QGIS.ORG funds should be rather spent a) to > community work or b) infrastructure work or c) development work in the > core of QGIS, such as API modifications, code redesign - stuff that > isn't really visible to the users, but essential for the success of the > project. > > > > Documentation and PyQT documentation work is already budgeted in our > annual budget. The money for 2016 hasn't even been spent for both items. > So I think we should first use the budgeted money for such work. I think > that user and developer documentation should be an ongoing effort and > should be supported every year, und budgeted every year as such. We can > increase the documentation budget positions next year, should it be > necessary. In reality, it was more a lack of people willing to do the > work, rather than a lack of funding. So, I am happy to see some > proposals around documentation and developer documentation - so it seems > that we have some volunteers. I just suggest that we consider > documentation work separately and do it anyway - regardless of the > outcome of the voting on these items. > > Several proposals have a very limited local focus, only useful to one > single country, or a very limited subset of our users. I suggest that > such proposals could best be financed by local user groups or interest > groups. It can't be the purpose of the QGIS grants program to finance > such projects. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Here is my own personal list of priorities: > > 18) QGIS 3 ticket handling and API refactoring > > This is really time critical, and past discussions around QGIS 3.0 has > shown that there is a lack of project management work and coordination. > I regard this proposal as very useful for the QGIS 3.0 release. > > 11) Introduce everything necessary for QGIS3 to OSGeo4W > > The majority of our users are on Windows (like it or not). This is the > platform that matters most in our user base. The introduction of QGIS > 3.0 means porting everything to newer libraries and means a lot of work. > This should be one of our main priorities. Jürgen does it works silently > in the background many days of work each year that go unnoticed. Jürgen > usually only hears complaints if something fails - maybe not so much > praise. Having Windows nightly builds and releases early on in the life > cycle of QGIS 3.x means that it can be well tested. So - also really > important to our project. > > 2) Implement a flexible properties framework in QGIS > > This is the kind of under-the-hood API changes and improvements I > mentioned above. Stuff that brings our project forward, but under the > hood - not visible for the user. This is the basis that later follow-up > work can than build upon and benefit from. Stuff that later can also be > funded by organizations/companies. Also time critical, to be done as > soon as possible. Early in the 3.x life cycle when API changes are still > possible. > > 14) Project / Map layer registry refactoring > > Similar reasoning like item 2) above. Under the hood, necessary API > improvements. Also time critical, to be done as soon as possible. Early > in the 3.x life cycle when API changes are still possible. > > -------------------------------- > > Now, the documentation items: > > 1) 2.16 Documentation > > 16) PyQGIS Developer Cookbook update and maintenance > > 15) PyQGIS Cookbook Review > > They add up in total to € 14k. I believe that all of the three deserve > to be supported financially. We have budgeted 10k € in 2016 for > documentation and PyQT documentation. 1.5k € have been spent so far. So > still 8.5k remaining. Together with the new 2017 budget I believe that > all of the three above items can be easily handled outside of the QGIS > grants program. Documentation should be an ongoing, continuous and > budgeted accordingly, outside of the grants program. > > ------------------------------- > > What are your opinions? > > Greetings, > > Andreas > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-user mailing list > [email protected] > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
