| 1 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> As I've said before, I've got no objections to supporting the idea of blog |
| 3 |
> aggregators as long as they're going to be used. Can we put in the GLEP |
| 4 |
> something that acts as a measure of success? X people participating |
| 5 |
> "regularly" over Y months or something like that? (and, for the pedantic |
| 6 |
> among us, perhaps define "regularly" as "at least N posts per |
| 7 |
> week/month/whatever") |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What I don't want to get into is a position where we have this app that we |
| 10 |
> have to maintain and support, but only a couple people actually use it. |
| 11 |
> That takes time and resources away from other things that folks might use |
| 12 |
> more. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I understand your viewpoint, but (as discussed in this thread) there are many |
| 15 |
criteria which will determine the success of the planet, some of which are |
| 16 |
impossible or difficult to measure effectively. Maybe you would like to |
| 17 |
suggest some targets which you feel would define an active planet? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I would much prefer to let this run, initially marked as beta if need be, and |
| 20 |
see how it goes. If at some point in the future there is a feeling that the |
| 21 |
planet is inactive, we should then assess the aggregated contributions and, if |
| 22 |
required, *then* decide upon some goals for a further assessment period before |
| 23 |
considering dropping the planet. At that stage we'll have a much better feel |
| 24 |
of the content, quantity, and quality of the aggregated articles and hopefully |
| 25 |
we will also have feedback from readers. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Also, can we count on you and Stuart to help with the intitial |
| 28 |
> configuration of the two packages? (planetplanet and wordpress) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yes. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Daniel |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives