On Monday 20 February 2006 21:32, Brett Haydon wrote:
> Hi there,
> Certification would go some way to separating mature projects from those in
> their infancy, but in my mind what the existing Plone/Zope product
> repositories lack most is a mechanism for user feedback.
> I would like to see:
> 1. Some kind of self-submission categorizing (or classification) as per the
> existing attempts at categorization
> 2. A peer vote based ranking system that can be used as a sort, with a
> nominal minimum number of votes before it can be ranked.
> 3. Another sort by 'popular' packages - ie by the number of votes above
> average
> 4. Certified 1-4 packages getting listed first
> 5. User comments
> I think this would go a long way to identify those little gems that
> otherwise only get picked up by accident or referral from the mailing lists
> because the author has no real interest in the process, and needs cajoling
> just to write up some adequate docs. Certification processes seem likely to
> reflect the existing use of a package rather than encourage new development
> or innovation.

Note that this proposal is merely about process and quality of software. It is 
not in the scope of the proposal to provide a software distribution center or 
a complete development platform. There is already software for most of those 
other topics and I did not want to reinvent the wheel with this proposal.

All of the information collected by the ZSCP process can and should be reused 
in any other software as seen fit. In fact, the point of specifying the 
package (meta-)data so formally is so they can be reused.

I have also already implemented the parsers and writers for all of the data. 
Since this code will be publically available, any other Web site or software 
can reuse it to process the data.

I have actually addressed this issue in a Q&A:

  For such a process it seems to be useful to have an issue tracker, special
  mailing lists and/or an advanced buildbot setup. Why are those technologies
  not addressed in the proposal?

  This proposal is *not* about technical solutions. It is about defining a
  process and laying the implementation of this process via a community
  repository. The purpose of the proposal is to establish an initial set of
  guidelines/rules and not to discuss the technical implementation.

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to