Reinhard Poetz wrote: > Stefano Mazzocchi > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > > > I would highly recommend steering away from the use of > > > the word certified > > > unless you intend to establish a standards body to oversee > > > an official certification process. > > > > Good point. "Supported" sounds less marketing intrusive. > > > > comments? > > What happens if we find out that a certain block is not supported any > more (technology outdated, we have a better block, any active > developers) *after* we marked it as supported. The first question I had > was "how long does supported mean"? The former proposed *certified* > relates to a certain point of time without saying something about the > future. > > Another point is that Cocoon is open source and nobody can be forced to > support a single line of code ... > > Maybe we can find a word that relates to a point of time and does not > have all the meanings "certified" has (see Berin's mail > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106434951718170&w=2) > > Reinhard
How about "verified" ... together with a verification-date and expected-review-date and the other metadata. We would verify that it has an active community, verify that it plays nicely with the rest of the Cocoon, verify its cvs commit-rate (or verify that it is so stable that it does not need a high rate), verify other stuff ... while KISS. With this word we stop short of saying that we certify or support. --David
