John Plocher wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Bonnie Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
If people see a need to differentiate between different kinds of inactive
projects, it would be helpful if the OGB would define categories and specify
banner text to go on each.
I'd rather see the website community propose such a policy, and (if
the website community agrees), implement it. The OGB doesn't really
need to invent or impose this kind of policy on other people.
That said, as a website community member (taking off my OGB hat), I
propose that Jim keep on doing what he has already described. If it
needs more formalism, then:
The lifecycle policy for collectives (user groups, projects and
communities) currently covers the creation mechanisms. It needs to be
extended to cover additional scenarios for inactive and never got
started collectives:
For collectives that are empty and dead (that never started, never got
"unhid", or are otherwise content-free and unused for some reasonable
length of time), the "project setup folks" may simply garbage collect
the mess: Turn off the forums and email lists, delete the associated
(presumably effectively empty) mail and forum archives, delete the web
site and repo content (again, presumably effectively blank), etc...
Collectives that were actually started and generated non-trivial
artifacts should probably not be deleted, but become inactive instead.
For reasonable definitions of "reasonable time", +1. :)
I do trust Jim to do the right thing, though.
(For others.....).
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
