Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>
> By taking a close inventory, setting the bar high for the new
> site, and really thinking about each doc that gets to make it to the new
> site, we can make sure that bad, incomplete and inaccurate stuff doesn't
> make it over.
I suggest we set up a review system similar to the one for Mozilla
development.
I'm thinking of having
a. a separation into "modules" for each project-specific directory and
some general groupings of all other directories
e.g. I can have edit permission for NGLayout but only
anonymous-level permission everywhere else.
b. two levels of permission above anonymous
* maintainer - can edit documents, but not add any files
* "module owners" - can edit and add files (there can be more than one
per "module")
c. permissions awarded on a merit system
- anyone can submit content to mozilla.org, but it needs to
be reviewed and checked in by someone with appropriate permissions
- maintainer permission awarded to those who have demonstrated
- good writing skills
- gets the point across
- checks spelling and grammar before submission
- good coding skills
- uses markup appropriately (syntactically /and/ semantically)
- indents code for readability and maintainability
- owner permission awarded to maintainers who also
- demonstrate wisdom in choosing the location of new files
- keep up with and are aware of changes to the files in their area
d. review required for adding any files/directories to mozilla.org, even
by owners
- verify content
- verify coding
- confirm proposed location
Special attention should be given to that last one, IMO, because you
can always change content if there's a problem, but a URI should be
permanent.
~fantasai
