RE: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedora-infrastructure-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-
> infrastructure-list-bounces(a)redhat.com] 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(a)redhat.com>
> 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