Re: Re: Publicly listed channels (was [PEAR-DEV] Considering package proposal:

Alan Knowles wrote:

I guess it's a double edge sword, + channels = promote other locations with quality php code - channels = promote other locations with crap php code. Do we promote phpNuke, phpBB channels.. ? Perhaps, each channel that has a huge following should be seriously considered.

Do we promote myFirstPhpProject type channels ? Absolutely not - PEAR should only list channels that have an established userbase. Paul Jones has demonstrated that it is possible to create a userbase out of thin air in 6 months to a year, so I don't think this is too much to ask. Compromising on this point would be suicide for PEAR and lead to your "- channels" point.

How do we decide if a channel is good, bad? Each channel should be considered independent of any other. I would say that pear.php.net probably should not list channels that are gray areas, but instead wait until they get out of the gray either way.

Does the channel page end up looking like hotscripts/phpclasses? No. If used properly, there will be a few important, large sites that also have channels. These sites should be listed through pear.php.net. I don't think it will be hard to tell which these sites are, as they will be blogged about by independent parties, have high rankings on sites that track popularity, and active user forums of some sort.

I think the idea about pointing to a single (or maybe later two or three) external site(s): phpcodechannels.net or something? which can decide it's own listing rules seems more sensible. PEAR is more about a repository of quality code, which is peer reviewed, and maintained.. - not really the place to do a hotscripts type search for projects... Channels are independent of pear.php.net. I agree - pear.php.net (PEAR) is a repository of quality code. That will not change at all.

Let me be more clear. The first year or two of channels, I can't imagine that more than 10-20 channels will fit the bill of being an active channel. The only channel that fits the bill today is Stephan Schmidt's channel. Even my own channel at pear.chiaraquartet.net is not a mature channel. It works, but does not have a community base behind it, and only provides 1 package. Channels listed at pear.php.net should be established as important centers of PHP activity prior to being listed. Niche groups can easily publicize their channels to their niche followings. My point is that PEAR (as in pear.php.net) people do not need to judge the quality of code, only the quality of their channel support. 1) can you successfully install/list/download packages from the channel? 2) is it obvious that the code has a large following amongst PHP users, and is here to stay (think Horde, for example)? 3) do they take care of their own QA (have documentation, bug reporting/feature request centers/forums for users?) These two questions are really enough. Greg