On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:06 -0500, Shai Gluskin wrote: > 1. Issue queue, issue queue, issue queue. The issue queue is the > window into a module. By studying the issue queue for less > than 5 minutes (sometimes 20 seconds) you can determine the > quality of maintenance and the level of current activity in > terms of new features and future development. We need to be > more explicit in our docs about teaching new people just how > to study the issue queue to make these evaluations. > 2. Advertise the module feed: We need to better advertise the > module feed (http://drupal.org/taxonomy/term/14/0/feed). Why > isn't it on the module pages at d.o.? Getting more people to > subscribe will help nip problems early if there is clear > overlap. It also helps people get people interested in modules > and can help develop collaborations etc. > 3. Move dev list to g.d.o. The dev list is important. And people > should be encouraged, but not required, to run ideas by this > list. But I've got problems with this list. Why hasn't this > list been replaced by a group at groups.drupal.org? Try doing > a Google search and limiting your results to: > http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/. It's pathetic. > I don't know what the problem is. But I don't think it is > worth fixing other than migrating to g.d.o. I don't think this > list should be a requirement for anything. We aren't eating > our own dog food on this list. > 4. More stats: The relatively new usage stats at d.o. are > awesome. They provide a nice resource for people evaluating > modules. Lets develop some other stats as well. Here is one > that I've thought about: Output a percent which is the number > of posts and commits in a queue by maintainers divided by the > total number of posts on the queue within the last year. It > could give a quick sense to folks about the level of > participation of the maintainer(s). A stat like that couldn't > be used alone to make an evaluation, but in conjunction with > other information, it could help. I think there is a lot of > data that is sitting on d.o. that we are not leveraging. I'm > in favor of developing more stats, which maintain themselves, > rather than having some "core group" make evaluations.
Totally agree with points 1, 2 and 4. Pierre.
