potiuk commented on PR #1423: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/pull/1423#issuecomment-3955124410
> Agreed ☺️ I'm not sure we'd need a committee, but some simple set of criteria to follow at least. Depends on the criteria. Most criteria leave it to a discretion of "someone"- usualy in things like that it's very difficult to have a 0/1 criteria. Even in provider governance we have some numbers, but they are provisional and PMC has a "final vote". I can't imagine the whole PMC voting on a single entry in ecosystem, that would be adding up a lot of work for PMC - not only because of voting when added but also having some mechanism to evaluate if it has not changed. Again - we had in the past a case where such link became a spam - https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/issues/1205 apparently an old link we added have been pointing to "escort" service. Happened. True story. Flagged by one of the users and removed. Since we do not assume any responsibility and assume "sole discretion" to follow the links, such cases are not really our (PMC) responsibility - we should (and we do) remove them when flagged, but other than that, we do not take any responsibility in proacitvely checking and removing links that became "roque". So once we assume some "vetting" responsiblity and criteria, we need to make sur they are kept - that's some work for whoever will be responsible for it, and while PMC might be the right body - then that body should accept that responsibility and act accordingly. This is why I thought of a comittee. But whatever the decision body is - they will need to take things seriously if we start gating things that we accept there. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
