Touching on the "community feedback system". Is worth having a ticket submitted to get a project added to the "To Review" list? I'm thinking of some kind of custom link to a ticket submission that pre-fills some of the fields to set it apart from the regular tickets. (I haven't yet had a chance to check out the ticket-entering side of things, but I'm kinda assuming that it's a browser-centric process.) ======================================================================= John M. Troan <jtroan@xxxxxxxxx> Maintainer: Football Site @ JT-SW.com http://www.jt-sw.com/football Chief of Computer Operations U.S.S. Kitty Hawk / NCC-1659 ======================================================================= infrastructure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/03/2014 11:49:58: > Bill Wood <bwood@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent by: infrastructure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 05/03/2014 11:50 > > Please respond to > Fedora Infrastructure <infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To > > Fedora Infrastructure <infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > > cc > > Subject > > Re: Fedora Hosted Project Guidelines (Ticket #847) > > These are very good points, Pierre! I figured these questions would > come up at some point. > > If you go and look through the list of packages on fedorahosted.org, > you'll notice a lot of "Welcome to Trac!" homepages. The ones that > were changed from that are usually very sparse in words, and don't > do a good job of describing what the package is or does. It took me > a very long time to find the three examples that I put in the doc. > Just looking through the site can prove my point there. > For the checks, I'm thinking about ways to automate it. We would > really just need to crawl the database and look for specific things. > Maybe we also set up a community feedback system where users can > tell us if there's not enough content (kind of like Google Play, but > not broken beyond repair) so that we can go in and take a look at > what's wrong. The goal is to have as little work to physically do > while keeping the site useful, and that has been my mindset through > this process. > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:01:57PM -0500, Bill Wood wrote: > > I've been thinking about a few ways we can clean up fedorahosted.organd, > > after talking with Kevin, I think I've got a good enough draft to let you > > guys give any input you might have. I've pasted the draft at > > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/98687/ > This was an interesting reading, but I have some questions regarding it: > > > good bit of the projects on fedorahosted.org are not documented at all by > > their creators. Some haven't been updated in years and are > > probably abandoned. > > Do we have any information on this? Is this based on a "gut feeling"or on some > actual data? > > > We archive projects that do not meet specific checks > > So these would be automated or manual checks? If the later, we'll > need to figure > out a mechanism for a project to move back to the list of active project no? > > The text you present here are meant to be placed on the FAQ? Or on the page > presenting how we qualify project has been active or not? > > Basically the idea sounds fine but I am a bit wondering how big it is and how > easy it would be to automate (because I don't think we would want > manual checks). > > > What's your thoughts? :) > > > Pierre > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list > infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list > infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
