On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:30:13 +0100 (CET) Andreas Tille <til...@rki.de> wrote: > What do you have in mind by "strict" control?
A QA process to ensure that only "approved" debtags make it out to the users, governed by some official body (probably including both the debtags team and the team for the Blend itself). I can see that for some Blends this might be quite important. For Debian Jr., I am not so sure. > I fail to see what you mean with democratic. Could you try to > explain in more technical terms? It's not a technical issue. It's a social one. Choosing packages that might be enjoyed by children is highly subjective. If there's some sloppiness in that process, is it that important? In the end, even after we've made our recommendations it is up to the individual children and their guides to decide which packages they enjoy and will keep using. Who do we want to "own" the problem of making this determination, the developers or the users themselves? The answer is probably a bit of both. So how strict do we need the QA process to be? If the QA team is made up entirely of developers, then this may be a barrier for user participation. That is, if there is sufficient delay between a user making a recommendation and the recommendation becoming publicly visible, the user might lose interest in the excercise and stop contributing. If the barrier for participation in the recommendation process is lowered, we may end up with more people involved and ultimately, better quality choices because of it. But maybe I'm wrong about this and the whole issue of QA is orthogonal with structuring our Blend to allow maximum input from users for package recommendations via debtags. Ben -- ,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca sy...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca \`' Debian http://www.debian.org sy...@debian.org ` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-custom-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
