On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 08:24 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > The module's maintainership isn't sucking in general, but there have been a > number of periods in which it hasn't been great. Please don't make this out > to be worse than it is, that kind of approach doesn't help resolve anything.
What I want to resolve is this: * There are regular complaints about lack of responsiveness in the maintainership of Planet Gnome. * The process is not transparent. When someone mails you, "add my blog", or "update my hackergotchi", no one but that person will know if he got a reply, or what the reasons were for his request getting rejected. * There's no way to know what makes a hackergotchi that will be accepted, or a whole blog for that matter. Planet Gnome has trascended a personal project into being a community resource; congrats on that! PGO is the only thing I read *outside* my normal aggregator because it is *so nice* to look at. Your maintainership on that front has clearly been very good; now what I want to do is to make it all smoother for everyone. > I've spoken to potential maintainership team members who already have direct > experience with pgo maintenance, and have been working on sucking guidelines > out of my head and into publishable form. What you're asking for is already > on the way. Ah, that's good to know. Who's on the team, so that we may inquire them about the progress? "Sucking guidelines out of my head" --- that's exactly the kind of problem we need to solve. If this is not documented, every rejection seems arbitrary. Federico _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
