On 24.03.2014 22:34, Alex Mandel wrote: > On 03/24/2014 02:22 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote: >> Hi all. >> After a short talk with Richard, I feel it is important to clean up the >> unapproved plugin queue: we had about 40 plugins, some from 2012. >> I'm writing the authors to ask for missing info, then I >> approve/unapprove as I believe it is best for the project. >> Of course I may be wrong, please forgive me: I think it is better to >> approve a less than perfect plugin than leave dozens of potentially good >> ones in the shade, and frustrate their authors and potential users. >> Any suggestion and feedback welcome. >> > Agreed, the point of approval isn't to vet the quality of the program - > "experimental" is always welcome. I'd say anything with less than > perfect information/quality just be flagged "experimental". > > I understood the intent of approval process was to prevent distribution > of malicious code, spam and other nefarious purposes. > > Thanks, > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Sounds perfectly reasonable. That's exactly the criteria I think this process should follow.
Best Matthias _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
