On 17 Apr 2005, at 13:47, David A. Golden wrote: [snip]
2) A metric to estimate the quality of a distribution for authors to compare their work against a subjective standard in the hopes that authors strive to improve their Kwalitee scores. In this model, faking Kwalitee is irrelevant, because even if some authors fake it, others will improve improve quality (as measured by Kwalitee) for real, thus making Kwalitee "useful" as a quality improvement tool.
Actually, in #2, fakers can provide extra competitive pressure, as module authors who take Kwalitee seriously perceive a higher standard that they should be striving for.
I think most of the Kwalitee debate has been around confusion between whether #1 or #2 is the goal, plus what the "subjective standard" should be.
If #2 is the primary goal then one option might be to have a standard way of popping the information into the META.yml file? If we're assuming honesty on the module authors part...
Adrian
