On 01/23/2013 01:00 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> > wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:25 AM >>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Time to rewrite/rethink modules.apache.org? >>> >>>> This will be done by lazy consensus; If I hear no complaints within >>>> the next 72 hours, I will consider the subject agreed upon and start >>>> upgrading the site to the new system. So, if you do have objections, I >>>> suggest you let them be heard :) But please do try out the new system >>>> before you make up your mind - it's got lots of improvements, both for >>>> visitors and module authors. >>> >>> 72hr lazy consensus is not enough to scrap the site and data that we >> stepped >>> up to support in the not so distant past. >> >> hmm, how have you been supporting it since the code was moved to the infra >> repo ? > > I think you're contrasting httpd vs. infra and saying we didn't live > up to our end of the bargain. I'm not disagreeing with that, and I > guess "step up" is probably a bit misleading. > > What I intended to convey was that people cared about this during the > last reboot (whether or not we fulfilled a committment properly), and > that 72h lazy was not enough consideration for them and the submitters > of data. > > I could be totally misunderstanding you though. Do you take issue > with slowing things down or is this a tangent? >
Personally, I'm find with you guys objecting to a lazy consensus - it means this isn't just being ignored any more, as the site seems to have been for years, to be honest. The site is in a big need of an overhaul - there are no moderators for it currently, besides Gavin and me, and updates are done in the most painful way you can imagine. What I propose is a new site that lets authors update their modules in an easy, comfortable way, either manually adding new releases or managing it through a DOAP file, and which gives the visitors a better bang for their buck. The data we have on record now is stale, it's very sparse, and does not invite authors to do anything but just register the name of their module and a one-liner that'll hopefully get visitors attention - not much of a site if you ask me. I implore you to try out the new site, both as a regular visitor and as a (fake) module author, and see if this isn't a vast improvement of what we have. And I also ask you to consider, that with the new improvements, getting new module data will be a lot easier, and much of the scrapped data will surely come back in a hurry - except maybe for those modules that haven't been updated in this century or have been incorporated into httpd. So, for now, I'll withdraw my lazy consensus, and I'll instead put up a vote once the discussion has been had. This however requires some participation! With regards, Daniel.
