Re: Re: Notes Status, 9952 total

BTW Goba, can we make things move for the notes maintenance ? Two things : 1 - Who's and who's not From http://cvs.php.net/co.php/phpdoc/RFC/2003_meeting_findings.txt?r=1.1 : "Types of other contributors: - user note maintainers: andrew, meebay, didou, ... The list can be generated from the php-notes mailing list archive. Wez is going to do make a script pull it out from archives, and after that we're going to put up guidelines for who is a maintainer and who is not." My statistics can be a reference to start discussing this issue again ? Here's what I suggest regarding this : What I mean by "action" in the following is deleting, rejecting, editing a note. Adding a note in the manual isn't an action. Is a note maintainer : - Any moderator who have reached a certain ammount of actions (how much ?) - Any regular moderator (a certain number (?) of actions / month). Here's a first layout, feel free to add/discuss points. 2 - The notes system From the same URL, topic "3. User note handling" "Most people think that the approval system should go back in, but also there should be a possibility to provide a reason when rejecting a note as to tell the note provider why the note was rejected. If an email address of the note provider is available, this should be mailed to him/her." For me, the approval system can be included (it will avoid some mails like this one : http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.mirrors&article=20026) (The note was http://news.php.net/article.php?group=php.notes&article=53673) We receive a lot of notes of this kind, and from time to time we get "attacked" by a redundant humorist.. About providing reasons when deleting/rejecting a note, I think that it's a true need. Here's some reasons I suggest : When deleting : - outdated : for example, a note helping to configure some library with PHP 3.X, a note using a function that is no more part of PHP. - replying : the note is a reply to another note asking for help. The original note should be hunted down and rejected (as stated in the HOWTO) - bogus : for example, a note giving an example for a mysql_* function on a mssql_* function page. - trash : spam, bad words, an _old_ (more than 6 months is a good limit) note asking for help, a non-english note, a note that should be rejected but have a wrong email address .. - duplicated : there's already a note saying the same thing, differently. If there's a lot of duplicated entries stating the same thing, we should think about integrating the note in the manual - added : the note content was added to the manual. We can even send a mail to the note submitter, giving him a link to the updated CVS file and thanking him for his add-on. When rejecting : - support : a note asking for help - bug : a note talking about the bug : why the user didn't fill out a bug report as stated 4 times while he was adding the note ? - notourthing : a note complaining about a parse error on another website. The user will receive a mail telling him to contact the webmaster of the visited site. Any comments ? I'm ready to help coding this new system if needed. Cheers, didou

Just FYI, some statistics about the notes moderatores are there : http://didou.keliglia.com/notes_stats.html It's *not* official and maybe false

Wow, good to see some stats. What are these based on? Goba