Thanks so much, assaf :) You are right, this seems adequate, thanks a bunch for making these changes. I think the placement of "but is ultimately at the discretion of Savannah hackers" is still not ideal, but now it's visible enough to a first-time submitter.
Moving forward, I was thinking about doing a survey of rejected submissions with the goal of determining both the objective scope (count, byte size) and the subjective scope (specific reasons given) of past rejections. I believe this is a necessary first step, since we would want to see what the standing policy in fact accomplishes before we even try to replace it with something else. This will probably take a while. I am assuming I can see all the past rejections, but if I hit a wall, I will give you a shout. During this time, I would love to hear suggestions about an effective way of conducting this survey, or any ideas, really, pertaining to this policy discussion. On Thursday, March 09, 2017 16:26:34 Assaf Gordon wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:41:51PM -0800, Ivan Zaigralin wrote: > > The requirements page should definitely list requirements which are very > > different from those in other popular hosting services, do Savannah admins > > agree with that? > > I don't. The requirements page should list the hosting requirements. > That's it. Differences and interpretations can be expanded upon > elsewhere (which is the Wiki page "how to get your projects approved > quickly"). > > > [...] the programs are required to be good enough in the eyes of > > individual Savannah administrators, do Savannah admins agree with > > that? > > Yes, and it is now stated so in the two pages we've mentioned. > > >https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php > > > >Here's one way to keep things concise: > > > >Non-GNU projects are reviewed by Savannah hackers, who can exercise > >judgment, and are not required to accept every project submission that > >meets the technical requirements listed above. > > > >What do you think? > > First, > this is incomplete description: ALL projects are reviewed and all > projects must pass subjective evalation, both gnu and non-gnu. > It is simply the case that evaluation is done by different people for > each type. To repeat: ALL projects hosted on savannah have been > subjectively reviewed and approved. > > Second, > The fact that all projects require a review process is now clearly > mentioned in the last section of the requirements page, > with links to details about the review process for gnu and non-gnu. > Those further details expand upon the review process, including > exercising the judgement of the reviewers. > > regards, > - assaf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
