On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 11:22 -0500, Sam Berlin wrote: > Both Odi & Oleg have very good points. I agree that the page can > become too unweildly and end up actually working against it's goal > (promoting HttpClient & other projects) when it is too large. > However, Oleg's correct in that it would appear to be very difficult > to actually research into each project and see if it is a valid link. > > Perhaps some sort of compromise, where the description of the project > must state how it uses HttpClient (and if the page still becomes too > large, why it is a novel use of HttpClient). I don't think any actual > time needs to be invested into seeing if the project "really" uses > HttpClient. > > The most recent entry (with the fork), as Odi said, is a great example > of a good link. Larry's link of The Ladders had a pretty bad > description, so that would be an example of a bad link. > > > I just finished the fourth series of Six Feet Under on DVD :-) Have to > > check out if there is a fifth... > > You should check out Dead Like Me. It's much better. :) > > Sam >
Folks, I am cool with anything that works for the community. My points are (1) It would not be right to start removing/demoting existing entries in the Applications page based on a new set of criteria / policies. (2) It would be silly to set up a whole bunch of fancy policies and then fail to enforce them effectively Oleg > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
