On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fedora-infrastructure-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fedora- > > infrastructure-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood > > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM > > To: Fedora Infrastructure > > Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted. > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the > > > barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's > > projects > > > that don't need to be updated every 6 months but we can identify > > those and > > > deal accordingly. > > > > How about 'delisting' instead of deleting? I'm operating under the > > assumption that the infrastructure burden of hosting the project isn't > > the problem you're trying to solve, and that keeping the projects at > > fedora hosted relevant is. > > > > A delisted project simply wouldn't appear on the main fedora hosted > > list of projects, but would still be available via direct link. That > > way, nothing is lost, but the clutter vanishes. > > > > You could even have yet another category for projects that are known > > to be abandoned. > > > > What about using a Sourceforge-style project classification scheme? Allow > projects to self-identify their status (Alpha, Beta, Stable, Abandoned, > etc.). That would allow us to craft policies around project updates that are > more in line with their current development status. It would also allow us > to filter the main project page according to development status. > > For example: maybe alpha projects need to be updated at least every 3-6 > months, but stable projects would only need a minimum of a yearly or > bi-yearly update to be considered "actively maintained." > Why? -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
