Re: Re: PFC-RFC Update

Markus Wolff <wolff@21st.de> artikulierte: >> 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 That would be a "nice-to-have", but not exactly what i meant. There should be a group of fixed people, rating the integrity and quality of each package. But i think your idea should be implemented, too. Not only with PEAR developers enabled for voting, but for everyone using PEAR. This can give the maintainers a little overview about what the folks think about their package. Another nice-to-have thing could be a PHP manual like commentation-system to let users make some notices on the packages (e.g. examples, critics, a.s.o.). > - 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. +1 > - 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". I don't know if this is really a good thing. I think the real quality assurance should stay by a core-group rating the "PFC state" of a class. > - 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. +1 > Just a thought ... might just as well be overkill :-) I don't think so. IMHO theese ideas should be kept in mind, althoght i do not rate them as highly recommended. 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);');} ?>