On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud <denis.rouz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I'd like to share my concern about the grant proposal and voting process. > I believe we have some serious weaknesses in this process, but sadly I > don't have perfect solutions to propose. > > First, I felt not completely honest while voting: I had 2 proposals and > one of my colleagues had another one. Can I be neutral and objective? > Probably not. > The only solution which came to my mind is to prevent people from voting > on their own or voting at all if they anything submitted. But looking at > the people actually writing the proposals, it would be a non-sense to > prevent them from voting as they are the most aware of the QGIS core code. > > It made me think of how voting modifications of the constitution happens > in Switzerland: the executive is sending out voting recommendations. This > could be an approach, that someone (PSC? a dedicated group?) gives a > technical advice on the proposals. But here again, it might be difficult to > be objective and mostly politically quite risky. > > This brings me to another issue: some proposal don't leave room for > technical discussion. On this part, I think that we should make writing a > QEP mandatory as it should be the place to discuss the proposal and to > raise concerns. What happens if a grant proposal is accepted but not its > implementation? > Denis, I second this last proposal. Thanks for raising the issue. -- Alessandro Pasotti w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
