Rob Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of their projects. Some projects that are already inactive for some time
> can be closed, and restarted if new forces become available. Other
> projects should inform the community with well defined goals. The reason
> why we wanted to close (and maybe reopen directly) some projects is
> because we want to see again well defined goals for those projects and
> that we want to see which project members are willing to recommit
> themselves to the project.
Ok, then the whole issue reduces to the small remark why should this status
be 'closed', because to my ears that sound as 'ready'. I think it makes no
sense closing project when it is obviously not finished ('frozen' or
'inactive' is much clearer), and little sense if the project is in active
development (and so is already 'frozen' implied by the 'freeze' of the
complete repository, so there is little need to explicitely freeze the
project individually, but well, that's a detail).
I think we should reflect the actual status of the projects in their status.
If that happens to be a messy reflection because projects are long
open/frozen/inactive because of lack of time of their members, then so be
it, things which are messy should also look messy... Projects should not be
closed because that looks nicer on the site or so.
Michiel
--
Michiel Meeuwissen
Mediapark C101 Hilversum
+31 (0)35 6772979
nl_NL eo_XX en_US
mihxil'
[] ()
