Dear devs and fellow PSC members,
As part of yesterday's PSC meeting, we reviewed the grant proposals with
regards to this year's formal grant programme criteria. You can find the
results of this review in a new tab within the proposal spreadsheet at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DICk
Indeed going a bit crazy ;)
Looking at the document mentioned in the thread [0], it would be good if we
could at least get the QEP requirement written in stone.
For the rest, I am a bit puzzled on the solutions. Maybe having only QEP
already accepted would be an option, although being other issue
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 17:46, DelazJ wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For the record,
> http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grant-application-suggestions-for-next-time-td5368078.html
> from last year
Oh good - thought I was going crazy with deja vu here. Turns out it's
just Denis who's going crazy ;)
Nyall
Hi,
For the record,
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grant-application-suggestions-for-next-time-td5368078.html
from last year
Regards,
Harrissou
Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:38, Alessandro Pasotti a
écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd l
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM Denis Rouzaud
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
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 anothe
