| 1 |
On Thursday 19 August 2004 12:00, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 09:26 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If and when someone writes a GLEP, it needs to cover the following |
| 4 |
> > items: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > * how it will accommodate devs who do not already have a blog. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Thats really up to the devs themselves, there are numerous ways to get |
| 9 |
> a blog going. I don't see why a planet GLEP should be so much more |
| 10 |
> complicated by adding requirements like this (which seem mainly your |
| 11 |
> personal view on what should be done afaics). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > * how we will measure whether or not it is 'successful'. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Mere page hits ? If we'd stop publishing things based on success rate |
| 16 |
> we might close down half the site I bet. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think that Kurt is more into the area of wanting success criteria that |
| 19 |
focus on the amount of posts, rather than the amount of page hits. How |
| 20 |
many logs per day/week need to be offered for the planet to be |
| 21 |
successfull? Maybe the blog is more successfull if more high-profile devs |
| 22 |
have regular logs? Etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> It's a planet, it's an aggregated feed of blogs that already exist. |
| 25 |
> Even with a few devs posting only once a week there will be enough |
| 26 |
> traffic. This sounds a bit like "If we don't get 10k syncs a day, we'll |
| 27 |
> delete the whole tree, it's no use otherwise". We used to push new |
| 28 |
> ideas, now we inhibit it with dry bureaucracy. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
No, we need to have an idea that there will actually be logs on the |
| 31 |
planet. Define how many would be acceptable (how many devs minimum, how |
| 32 |
many posts per week on average), and give an indication on why you |
| 33 |
believe that will be met. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Paul |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 39 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 40 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 41 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives