This isn't directed directly at anyone in particular, but I don't get why there is all the fuss about a quality issue though, after all, these guides/scripts are meant to have many eyes on them and critical views. Like others have said too. Take for example the suggestion with the multiple sub-forums having moderator volunteers (who have proper insight) moving them along as they mature. This would heighten the quality, by only accepting guides/scripts which had proper review of knowledgeable people, would be put forward. Similar can be done with individual works too, which can be put under review before acknowledged.
NASA is doing something similar to this for their research projects, although it does hinder their innovation, but it does increase efficiency on cost and reliability of projects, while still preserving some levels of innovation in it. The point here, is that nothing gets through the process before it had proper review, it will only come through if it has a certain quality to it. If creators misses something important, or ignores vital security/reliability implications, this will more likely than not be caught in the review process. Also the review system could be made so that it can withdraw it's acknowledgments, thereby if anyone should ever finds a reliability/security issue, it can be taken back as well. If people run un-reviewed or criticized guides/scripts, despite being warned not to, or to be careful and try to understand what the script/guides does before executing it, then if they don't do that, it's their own fault. What worries me a bit, are self-fulfilling prophecies, by being worried about an issue, that the person essentially creates the issue by focusing too hard on it. Many of these issues we can solve, it's not rocket science, they're not impossible obstacles that can't be overcome. The problem though, is if some don't want to consider the whole full complete picture, and focuses too hard on their self-fulfilling prophecies. We need to take a step back and reflect more on a holistic and abstract level, before returning to the details again, and then constantly shape the big picture until it improves. If guides/scripts are constantly checked and corrected every time someone finds a flaw in them, then what's the issue? Why is this issue blown so much out of proportion? We're talking about a review system no one else is doing on the internet here (maybe I overlooked it, the internet is massive, but it's not common knowledge at least). Generally, the criticism that follow other poor guides/scripts on the internet, does not automatically warrant criticism of guides that are put through an open review system like this. I don't want to see criticisms born from examples of other places, when a review suggestion is different from any of these places the criticisms are born. Lets be practical about this, we can't just move criticisms from one place to another, without first taking into account if the system produces the same issues or not. I'm not saying this to any particular person, but an attempt to try get back on the ground again, we're moving too far into the details without looking at the big picture. <-- if a person does that too much, they become legitimately insane as a result, so too a discussion can become insane too. We need some practical reality checks here and stay on the ground. It's a bit of irony that wanting closed development by few developers only, kind of echo's the mentality of closed proprietary code, rather than the mentality of open source. The whole idea of open source code, is reviews and checks, this is just a shift towards doing the same with guides/scripts as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/730a36c9-8a8c-46fc-ae4b-1d87b9ad776f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
