Two things :
1 - Who's and who's not
From http://cvs.php.net/co.php/phpdoc/RFC/2003_meeting_findings.txt?r=1.1 : "Types of other contributors: - user note maintainers: andrew, meebay, didou, ... The list can be generated from the php-notes mailing list archive. Wez is going to do make a script pull it out from archives, and after that we're going to put up guidelines for who is a maintainer and who is not."
My statistics can be a reference to start discussing this issue again ?
Here's what I suggest regarding this :
What I mean by "action" in the following is deleting, rejecting, editing a note. Adding a note in the manual isn't an action.
Is a note maintainer : - Any moderator who have reached a certain ammount of actions (how much ?) - Any regular moderator (a certain number (?) of actions / month).
Here's a first layout, feel free to add/discuss points.
2 - The notes system
From the same URL, topic "3. User note handling"
"Most people think that the approval system should go back in, but also there
should be a possibility to provide a reason when rejecting a note as to tell
the note provider why the note was rejected. If an email address of the note
provider is available, this should be mailed to him/her."
For me, the approval system can be included (it will avoid some mails like this one : http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.mirrors&article=20026)
(The note was http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.notes&article=53673)
We receive a lot of notes of this kind, and from time to time we get "attacked" by a redundant humorist..
About providing reasons when deleting/rejecting a note, I think that it's a true need. Here's some reasons I suggest :
When deleting :
- outdated : for example, a note helping to configure some library with PHP 3.X, a note using a function that is no more part of PHP.
- replying : the note is a reply to another note asking for help. The original note should be hunted down and rejected (as stated in the HOWTO)
- bogus : for example, a note giving an example for a mysql_* function on a mssql_* function page.
- trash : spam, bad words, an _old_ (more than 6 months is a good limit) note asking for help, a non-english note, a note that should be rejected but have a wrong email address ..
- duplicated : there's already a note saying the same thing, differently. If there's a lot of duplicated entries stating the same thing, we should think about integrating the note in the manual
- added : the note content was added to the manual. We can even send a mail to the note submitter, giving him a link to the updated CVS file and thanking him for his add-on.
When rejecting :
- support : a note asking for help
- bug : a note talking about the bug : why the user didn't fill out a bug report as stated 4 times while he was adding the note ?
- notourthing : a note complaining about a parse error on another website. The user will receive a mail telling him to contact the webmaster of the visited site.
Any comments ? I'm ready to help coding this new system if needed.
Cheers,
didou
Just FYI, some statistics about the notes moderatores are there : http://didou.keliglia.com/notes_stats.html
It's *not* official and maybe false
Wow, good to see some stats. What are these based on?
Goba
-- PHP Documentation Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
