Date of voting: 2019-11-19
Proponent: Paolo Cavallini
Rationale: We have a bugdet surplus that will be taxed if not spent within 2019. Proposal: spend €7.5k bugfix in advance, so to get rid of the surplus; next year less money will be invested in bugfix, so we have more resources for grants
Votes: In favour: Marco, Andreas, Jürgen, Anita, Paolo Abstain: Tim
Decision: Approved
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-11-19
Proponent: Andreas Neumann
Rationale: We have a bugdet surplus that will be taxed if not spent within 2019.
Proposal: spend €7.5k on infrastructure and projecta improvements (stripe integration, rehost plugin feed and changelog, API docs in Github pages, …) as a special PSC project
Votes: In favour: Marco, Anita, Jürgen, Andreas Abstain: Paolo
Decision: Approved
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-12-03
Proponent: Paolo Cavallini
Rationale: For each expenditure, after the work / item is done, but before payment, a report must be completed by the proponent, according to a simple template:
Date of resolution
Date of delivery
Proponent
Description of results
Eventual links to full description, commit etc.
Evaluation (success, partial success, failure).
Reports can be very short in case they are simple tasks, but we aim at completeness For recurring costs, only the initial report should be done All reports will be added to a single location.
Votes: In favour: Paolo Abstain: Anita, Tim, Andreas, Jürgen Contrary: Marco
Decision: Rejected
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-12-03
Proponent: Paolo Cavallini
Rationale: Each decision will be listed according to a simple template:
Date of voting
Proponent
Rationale
Votes
Decision
Notes
All decisions will be added to a single location on the web site (governance section).
Votes: In favour: Anita, Tim, Paolo, Andreas, Jürgen, Marco
Decision: Approved
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-12-03
Proponent: Paolo Cavallini
Rationale: To make our meetings more productive, the proposal is:
Regular meeting once a month, at a fixed date ad hoc short meetings are encouraged, and can be called anytime to discuss single issues and to have faster decisions and avoid too long regular meetings; only a subset of the PSC members can be present at the ad hoc meetings, if they are not interested in that specific topic; their vote will be counted as +0. A PSC member can block an ad hoc meeting if he feels strongly about participating but has not a time slot available. In this case it will be postponed to the monthly standard meeting.
Every meeting will appoint a Chair, normally the PSC Chair, and a Secretary (not necessarily always the same person), who will have the responsibility for completing the minutes; cooperative editing should be allowed.
Votes: In favour: Anita, Tim, Paolo, Andreas, Jürgen, Marco
Decision: Approved
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-12-03
Proponent: Saber Razmjooei
Rationale: The current download page is much outdated for mobile apps. Proposal: to have links to all three mobile (QField, Input and Roam) applications on the official download page
Votes: In favour: Anita, Andreas, Tim, Marco, Paolo, Jürgen
Decision: Approved
Notes: none
Date of voting: 2019-12-12
Proponent: Andreas Neumann
Rationale: Nyall Dawson requested an additional 3-4 days of funding for proj6 related issues and fixes. We still have funding available.
Votes: In favour: Andreas, Marco, Tim, Anita, Paolo
Decision: Approved
Notes: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2019-December/007983.html
Date of voting: 2019-12-12
Proponent: Andreas Neumann
Rationale: Giovanni Manghi requested the purchase of additional hardware to improve the testing process. Specifically:
450 € for improving his PC hardware
500-700 t€ o get a decent used Mac.
We still have funding available.
Votes: In favour: Andreas, Marco, Tim, Anita, Paolo
Decision: Approved
Notes: https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2019-December/007982.html
Date of voting: 2019-12-03
Proponent: Paolo Cavallini
Rationale: To make our decision process, making it faster and more transparent, the proposal is:
One PSC member raise on the PSC mailing list a topic to be decided.
If the proponent believes the discussion in ML is sufficient, the member calls for a vote.
If not, the member adds the point to the next PSC voice meeting, where it will be discussed and voted.
Once voted, the member passes the decision to the Secretary, who adds the resolution to the list of resolutions.
Votes: In favour: Anita, Tim, Paolo, Andreas, Jürgen Abstain: Marco
Decision: Approved
Notes: none