Fedora Hosted Project Guidelines (Ticket #847)

[jtroan at jt-sw.com]

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 at jt-sw.com>
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 at lists.fedoraproject.org wrote on 05/03/2014
11:49:58:

> Bill Wood <bwood at simbox.io>
> Sent by: infrastructure-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> 05/03/2014 11:50
>
> Please respond to
> Fedora Infrastructure <infrastructure at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
> To
>
> Fedora Infrastructure <infrastructure at lists.fedoraproject.org>,
>
> 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 at pingoured.fr
> > 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 at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
> _______________________________________________
> infrastructure mailing list
> infrastructure at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure