On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Salve J Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 27 October 2008 05:40:03 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
>>
>>> I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but
>>> sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion.
>>
>>> But taking down the hall of shame smells awefully like the chinese press
>>> rules ("We are only allowed to publish _good_ news about ourselves!")
>>
>> Did you know the Hall of Shame was there? Several of the people who
>> responded to my post didn't know it was there.
>
> Yes, I knew about it, although it could have been made more visible. Let's
> not fix a visibility/marketing bug by removing the list, but instead fix the
> core issue - the lack of visibility.
>
On one hand IMHO the hall of shame was not really a good idea but I
think it was really thought
as something we could laugh at. So I would consider that a joke that
did not go well
or at least had the potential to go very bad.
On the other hand I think we should let module authors know about the
general ideas the
community somehow thought to be good. For this we have to
1) agree on the core metrics
2) fix CPANTS to provide that information
3) start (cautiously !) sending e-mails to module authors about their
Before you shoot, read on:
1) I think we have already discussed this several times and more or less
have a list
2) Neither domm, the MAINtainer nor any of the minortener seem to have
any time in fixing CPANTS now.
2.5) Once we get the licensing recommendation from TPF and manage to
decide on the META.yml license field issue (see module-authors list)
I'll try to fix all the license related metrics of CPANTS.
3) Send one e-mail to every module author on their first upload starting from
the time we have this service informing them about the opt-in possibility
for details.
In addition if someone uploads a module that falls in the lower 30% of the
metrics send an e-mail anyway. IMHO this should be an opt-out service.
Gabor
