Re: Re: PFC-RFC Update

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:15:07 +0100 "Tobias Schlitt" <toby@php.net> wrote: > The only difference between my idea and the actual discussed > model should be to define the quality not only in 2 steps (PFC > and not PFC), but in some more steps, so that classes can grow > into PFCs while working on them. Hm, I must have missed your last post on this (not too difficult regarding the mail traffic during the last week or so)... so I don´t know if you might have proposed something like this already, but here´s what pops in my mind when I read the above paragraph: - Introduce a rating system where people can vote for several criteria of the PFC independently. Example: - Compliance to coding standards: 4.5 points average - PEARDoc documentation: 3.5 points average - PHPUnit test scripts: 1.3 points average - Actively maintained: 2.6 points average - ... etc. ... - Overall rating: 4.7 points average - Everyone with a PEAR account can vote, the points are the average number of points given by the voters - Add voting statistics to each packages: What was the worst vote given for this package, what was the best, how many people have voted? Maybe even something like: "Of the voters who maintain at least one own package on PEAR which has received a voting of 4.0 or better, there was an average overall rating of 3.2 for this package". This would add some feeling for the quality of the votes. - Once all criteria have hit a certain mark (ie. at least 4.5 points), and there has been a certain minimum of votes (ie. 10 votes), the package is regarded as a "PFC candidate". - A core PFC group will have to personally review a PFC candidate and manually elevate it to "Approved PFC" level. This last manual step is IMHO neccessary to avoid manipulation of the voting mechanism and ensure quality. Just a thought ... might just as well be overkill :-) Regards, Markus -- Markus Wolff <wolff@21st.de>