PSC Meeting 27 February 2015

PSC Meeting 6 February 2015

Proposed meeting time:

Friday 6th February, 1430 UTC, 5:30 AKDT, 1630 SAST, 00:30(27th) AEST, 1530 CEST,2174003,5879400,3369157&h=2759794&date=2015-2-6&sln=15.5-18

previous meeting

next meeting

IRC: #qgis_meeting_150227

Members Present:

  • aa
  • bb


  • criteria for refunding: PSC, core devs (how defined?), documentors, infrastructure maintainers, translators, other? Max amount per head? (pcav)
  • Status 2.8 release, banner/site/blog (RD)
  • Status 2.8 docs release (RD)
  • Shops, 'official' opening? (RD)
  • Credits for code contributors, guidelines (pcav)
  • <plz add>


--- Log opened Fr Feb 27 15:43:05 2015
15:43 -!- jef [[email protected]/developer/jef] has joined #qgis_meeting_150227
15:43 -!- Irssi: #qgis_meeting_150227: Total of 4 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 3 normal]
15:43 -!- Irssi: Join to #qgis_meeting_150227 was synced in 13 secs
15:43 < jef> hi.
15:43 < jef> where's tim?
15:43 <@duiv> hi
15:43 <@duiv> moving hous
15:43 <@duiv> e
15:43 < anitagraser> going to jakarta i think
15:44 <@duiv> and ^^
15:44 < jef> duiv: he's moving his house to jakarta?
15:44 < anitagraser> yes, jef 
15:44 <@duiv> nope
15:45 -!- mhugent [[email protected]] has joined #qgis_meeting_150227
15:45 <@duiv> hi marco
15:45 < mhugent> hi duiv
15:45 < anitagraser> hi mhugent 
15:45 < mhugent> hi all
15:46 <@duiv>
15:46 -!- jef changed the topic of #qgis_meeting_150227 to:
15:46 < anitagraser> 1. criteria for refunding: PSC, core devs (how defined?), documentors, infrastructure maintainers, translators, other? Max amount per head? (pcav)
15:47 < pcav> ok
15:47 < pcav> I think the issue is clear:
15:48 < pcav> IMHO we need clear rules to accept or deny refund
15:48 < pcav> doing it on ad hoc case risks:
15:48 < pcav> * to spoil our budget
15:48 < pcav> * even more seriously, to cause discontent
15:48 < pcav> opinions?
15:48 < anitagraser> our current budget draft contains 10k twice a year for HF
15:49 <@duiv> as long as we keep it as transaparent as possible, PSC can decide I think based on 'rules'
15:49 <@duiv> but it's never obvious how valuable somebody is for the project
15:50 < pcav> duiv: right
15:50 <@duiv> but let's start with the rules?
15:50 < anitagraser> rules for groups of people PSC, core devs (how defined?), documentors, infrastructure maintainers, translators, other? 
15:51 < anitagraser> or do you mean the basic rule: do people have to apply in advance
15:51 <@duiv> your first option
15:51 < anitagraser> on a one-time basis or for each HF
15:52 < pcav> one issue is: 
15:52 < pcav> why asking very core dev to apply?
15:53 < pcav> IMHO we can put out a list of people that are accepted by default
15:53 < pcav> e.g. core devs and psc members
15:53 <@duiv> well, I think you should not apply if you earn enough or when the costs < 300 euro or so
15:54 <@duiv> so higher the bar for people
15:54 <@duiv> also for core-devs and psc
15:55 <@duiv> but that is just an opinion
15:55 < anitagraser> high bar for volunteers who already don't get paid for their contributions
15:55 < anitagraser> if I would have to rank them, i would say: psc > core devs > infrastructure maintainers > documenters > translators 
15:57 < pcav> can we come out with a series of proposals to vote?
15:57 < anitagraser> maybe psc and core dev (= committers) don't need to apply
15:57 < pcav> +1
15:57 < anitagraser> +1
15:57 < pcav> even though committer is a rather empty shell nowadays
15:58 < anitagraser> pcav: can you explain? are there that many people with write access to the repo?
15:58 < mhugent> agreed. Is a committer someone with push access to master or someone who has submitted >0 pull requests?
15:59 < anitagraser> i was thinking push access to master
16:00 < anitagraser> duiv: ?
16:02 < pcav> IMHO push is not a clear criterion
16:02 <@duiv> I can have a look, but I would think 20 people have push access
16:03 < jef> 30
16:03 <@duiv> yep that is what I see now :-)
16:04 < anitagraser> any other suggestions for better definitions then?
16:04 <@duiv> I agree that a committer is a core-dev
16:04 <@duiv> if not: remove commit rights
16:05 < mhugent> I also think it is a good definition
16:06 <@duiv> looking at the list, I would maybe remove 2 or three persons (2 of them I do not know)
16:06 <@duiv> for the rest I really consider core-devs
16:06 < anitagraser> then the question is: committer = core dev = does not need to apply?
16:06 <@duiv> I think you should always apply
16:07 <@duiv> otherwise you never can do budgetting
16:07 <@duiv> and also for transparency it should be clear that that guy from The Netherlands is always applying, but not doing anything :-)
16:08 <@duiv> (sidetrack: /me applied twice I think)
16:08 < mhugent> +1. You have to book your ticket anyway. So applying is not an extra effort
16:09 <@duiv> we can have some 'dead-line' for appliance. Like an early bird discount
16:10 <@duiv> if we have a list which is too long (aka costs too much) as a psc we should pick the people which we value the most
16:10 <@duiv> somebody has to do this dirty job
16:11 < anitagraser> i can live with duiv's solution
16:12 <@duiv> pcav: what about: coredevs: max 100% coverage, others max 50% coverage?
16:12 < pcav> -1 for me
16:12 <@duiv> then we have 'just' two groups
16:12 <@duiv> why?
16:13 < pcav> if people is important for the project, we have to cover
16:13 < pcav> fully
16:14 < pcav> if not, they can cover their own expenses
16:14 < anitagraser> I'm with pcav on that
16:14 <@duiv> then why make the difference besteen devs/translators/etc etc
16:15 < anitagraser> duiv: i think that was just a listing of potential groupings, which we don't have to follow
16:15 <@duiv> then everybody applies, pcav and everybody sees the list, and psc decides which people do get money
16:17 < anitagraser> if those who think we need tight rules now won't make some specific suggestions, i think that's how it will be
16:17 < pcav> I would like to avoid arbitrary decisions
16:18 <@duiv> it's not arbitrary: but you will never get clear rules.
16:18 <@duiv> that is why there are so many lawyers
16:18 <@duiv> make some rules: like
16:19 <@duiv> - everybody can apply at least 40 days in advance
16:19 <@duiv> - based on that, psc will decide who will get refunds
16:20 <@duiv> - you can try to apply later, but that will be decided after the hackfest when it is clear if we still have money
16:20 <@duiv> - we will probably favour core-devs and psc-members
16:20 <@duiv> (deal with it)
16:20  * anitagraser has to leave in 15 min
16:21 <@duiv> maybe I sound rude, but I think you cannot be more clear in this
16:21 < pcav> ok
16:21 < pcav> at least we have a first step
16:22 <@duiv> make it 42 days :-)
16:22 < anitagraser> i think we could put that in a gdoc, improve it together over the next week and then publish it for the nodebo meeting to test it
16:23 < pcav> ok
16:23 <@duiv> pcav: can you do that?
16:23 < pcav> ok
16:23 <@duiv> so next item?
16:23 <@duiv> Status 2.8 release, banner/site/blog
16:24 <@duiv> I already asked jef, but he is waiting for some things from Tim
16:24 < jef> changelog.
16:25 <@duiv> I think the visual changelog is ok, but currently I'm not able to download it as rst because of a problem with that Django app
16:25 <@duiv> so: as soon as I can download the rst I'll put it in the site
16:26 <@duiv> then as jef gives green light, I'll do the new banner, and website stuff
16:26 <@duiv> and maybe somebody can do a blog post as some sort of official announcement?
16:26 < anitagraser> I can do that if you want
16:26 <@duiv> plz
16:26 < anitagraser> just tell me when to press publish :)
16:27 <@duiv> still 500
16:27 < jef> duiv: otherwise I would have announced yesterday
16:27 -!- anitagraser [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
16:28 -!- anitagraser [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #qgis_meeting_150227
16:28 <@duiv> let's just wait?
16:28 < jef> I can't even access that thing when I'm logged in.
16:28 -!- anitagraser [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Client Quit]
16:28 -!- anitagraser [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #qgis_meeting_150227
16:29 <@duiv> I have credentials on that server, but I cannot find logs as it is running in a docker container
16:29 <@duiv> I think
16:29 <@duiv> so let's just wait
16:29 <@duiv> next item?
16:29 < anitagraser> ok
16:29 <@duiv> docs 2.8?
16:30 < jef> I knew docker was the culprit :)
16:30 < anitagraser> Status 2.8 docs release (RD)
16:30 <@duiv> Maybe I should sent Otto an email and ask for some planning?
16:31 <@duiv> as soon as it is branched it takes me one day to have everything up and running
16:31 < anitagraser> sure would be good to know what the plan is
16:31 <@duiv> but I think we agreed on do a thorough 2.8 documentation and skip the other versions untill a new LTR
16:31 < anitagraser> yes, that's how i understood it
16:31 <@duiv> I'll do the email on the community list
16:32 < anitagraser> thanks!
16:32 <@duiv> Shops, 'official' opening? (RD)
16:32 <@duiv> I'll do an email to Bob and ask if the current shops can be made public
16:32 <@duiv> today I got my t-shirt :-)
16:32 <@duiv> XL is not very XL
16:32 < anitagraser> oh :(
16:32 < anitagraser> is the print ok?
16:33 <@duiv> is very much smell as acedic acid
16:33 < anitagraser> we could announce the shops with a picture of you in your t-shirt
16:33 < anitagraser> will have to see after first wash
16:33 <@duiv> looks a little rubberish, spraypaint or so
16:34 < anitagraser> they have different techniques for vector graphics but they cannot have gradients or shadows
16:34 < anitagraser> so those don't work with our logo
16:34 < anitagraser> if you send me a pic, i could blog about that too
16:34 <@duiv> ok, will do that.
16:35 < anitagraser> great! sorry, got to run now
16:35 <@duiv> and I'll ask Bob if it is OK if we make all  shops public
16:35 < anitagraser> see you later. bye
16:35 <@duiv> bye
16:35 <@duiv> Credits for code contributors, guidelines (pcav)
16:35 -!- anitagraser [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
16:36 <@duiv> pcav: are you happy with how it is show in the visual changelog now?
16:37 <@duiv> or do you want to have it in another way?
16:38 <@duiv>
16:38 < pcav> yes
16:39 < pcav> I think we can just announce it
16:39 < pcav> so contributors know how to do it
16:40 <@duiv> if you provide me the text, I'll put it in the website,
16:40  * duiv looking at a place for it
16:40 -!- gsherman [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #qgis_meeting_150227
16:40 <@duiv> hi Gary
16:41 < gsherman> hi
16:43 <@duiv> jef: I'm struglling to get current log for Gary, can you put it on paster or so?
16:44 < gsherman> sorry i'm late; been having too many late nights/early morning lately
16:44 <@duiv> ah working