Ken wrot:
> I just spent a considerable amount of time going through
> all the podling status pages, and there's a certain..
> lack of uniformity about them. I've attached the results.
Thank you for doing that, Ken. :-)
I've noted the same when doing spot checks in the past, as have (for
example) Roy and Robert. I keep wondering what we need to do to encourage
people to keep the files current. We've already tried making them a
pre-condition for releases and graduation.
> The status pages don't really have check-off points for
> at least two of the graduation criteria: diversity and
> 'has released something.'
No one has updated the template since the "has released something" topic
switched from being something discouraged to something required. Actually,
the templates haven't been changed in years, so perhaps we should take
advantage of a switch to the work that Dave Reid has been preparing to
review and revise. Is that something you would be interested in helping
with? You seem to imply such, below:
> (On a side note: To be perfectly frank, it makes me cringe
> to see this horribly effort-intensive and error-prone process
> being used by the ASF. IMHO, all this stuff should be
> regularised and normalised and maintained via Web forms. If
> I don't get shouted down, maybe I'll work on that. ;-)
> Worse, there are some that have made releases while the IP
> issues -- according to the status page -- are still in doubt.
:-( Error in oversight by us, then. What kind(s) of IP issues?
> Noel, that's an observation of something I consider to
> be a serious problem, and that I think we should try
> to fix (assuming others think it's a problem as well).
+1
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
