Hey all, This has been on my mind for a while -- I'd like to kick off discussions about how we can rework (fix?) the QEP approach to make it more useful for everyone.
Right now we are just using GitHub issues for submission + comments on QEPs. But this leads to an awkward ambiguity at the conclusion of QEP discussion. Is a QEP ever really accepted? Does the end of discussion mean it's approved? When do we formally "kill" a QEP when the consensus is that it's not wanted? Right now everything just ends up in the same state -- an open ticket. Maybe someone will label it with "implemented", but we're inconsistent in doing that. It's REALLY hard to even just see what QEPs are locked in and which should form part of QGIS development practices. This is preventing them from being used for policy changes (eg https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/304 ) In short, there's just a lot of ambiguity in the process. I think we could do better, and I'd suggest we follow GDAL's approach. This would require: 1. Some formal policy for voting on QEPs, and corresponding criteria for acceptance / rejection. 2. Reworking the QEP documentation so that we don't use issues for proposals, but rather use pull requests where the final proposal text becomes a markdown page in the repository. (3. anything else?) Thoughts? Nyall _______________________________________________ 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
