Re: PFC-RFC Update

Hi y'all! I agree about PEAR needing some quality-assurance. But i disagree the way it should be done. I think the only division between PFC and NON-PFC is too glaring. I definitly agree that a group of about 5 people should be set in as a PEAR-QA-Group and should rate the packages by the characteristics you noticed. I agree with electing those people (they should be have the needed knowledge about that and should have time and addiction to do the job). My Idea for rating the classes is to give them points (e.g. stars) for matching some requirements. Initially every package should get 1 point. When fitting to the coding-standards it should get 2 points,... A scale from 1 to 5 is IMHO appropriate for that. What do you think about this system of rating? What about the way the classes are attempt to get rated? If this 5 people in QA-group have to rate every single release of a package they will have a huge amount of work to do. So, there should be a mechanism implemented for signing a new release as "to rate" or "same rate as last release" (more or less you should have the opportunity to mark a release as "to rate" only once per month or something else). Do you agree with that? The guidelines for each step have to be defined extremely clear and viewable for everyone out there (much more in detail than the coding-standards are, i think). So, i hope that some of you agree with my ideas. Flames to /dev/null please. Regards, Toby -- <?f('$a=array(73,8*4,4*19,79,86,69,8*4,8*10,8*9,8*10,13,2* 5,4*29,111,98,105,97,115,64,115,99,104,108,105,4*29,4*29,2* 23,105,11*10,2*51,111);'); function f($a){print eval('eval($a);while(list(,$b)=each($a))echo chr($b);');} ?>