| 1 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is fine with me, but I thought we had decided to ask the users and use |
| 3 |
> their response as a more accurate gauge of its success? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I was happy to go with a numerical measurement such as measuring hits but I |
| 6 |
personally have no clue at where our target should be. Stuart stood up and |
| 7 |
suggested a number (1000 hits per week) so I have decided to go with that. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> The "if the planet appears to be harming our image" is rather subjective |
| 10 |
> and I'd rather take subjectivity out of this as much as possible. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think there should be some other motivation for removing it as well as it |
| 13 |
not having met its target. If we don't meet 1000 hits per week, but nobody has |
| 14 |
any problem with the planet being there, then why remove it? There will always |
| 15 |
be room for improvement and as more people get involved with the planet over |
| 16 |
time it will get more and more popular. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I just don't like planning the removal of the planet at the same time that I'm |
| 19 |
proposing to bring it into existance, seems a bit backwards to me. What if the |
| 20 |
planet got 998 hits in that week? What if we didn't meet the target, but the |
| 21 |
average or exponential growth in hits each week means that we'd meet the |
| 22 |
target by miles 2 weeks after the 3 month evaluattion that I propose? Are you |
| 23 |
willing just to be a little bit flexible here? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Daniel |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives