PEPr - Automated Verification Process for the transition from DRAFT to PROPOSAL to CALL FOR VOTES

Dear PEAR-Devs, Having followed PEPr as well as the PEAR-Dev mailing list for a while now, I stumbled over the following: (1) some of the proposal do not have some code base to look into (no links to a PEAR Package File, the source code, an API Documentation etc.), when the status is changed from "Draft" to "Proposal", e.g. Mango - see http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=231 (2) too often there is the *legitimate* request from the PEAR Devs to comply with the PEAR CS (apparently for some of the proposer its to cumbersome to comply with them in the first instance ...) (3) there are "orphaned" proposals (the oldest being of 20 June 2004 and Tobias wanted to delete this one latest by 22 Feb 2005); if I remember correctly, this issue has already been raised and discussed - PEAR Core-QA Team being in charge now; are there any final outcomes in this respect? In light of the above mentioned issues I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the automated verification process I have in mind, which should make life easier (at least in parts) for all full-featured PEAR developers: PEPr should be enabled to do the following: allow the status' change from "Draft" to "Proposal" and from "Proposal" to "Call for Votes" *only*, if (1) at least the following links are available: PEAR package file (.tgz), one or more Package source file (.phps/.htm) and Package documentation (API) (2) the source code presented complies with the PEAR CS. IMHO the check can be performed via respective added functionality to PEPr: a link checker as well as with PHP_Beautifier (is the output of PHP_Beautifier identical with the original source code?) - just a very simplified solution, to be elaborated on. PEAR Devs would then not to have to request again and again all this mandatory minimal conditions to be met. It would further make the PEPr process more straight/clearer, simpler to handle for all the parties involved. Either the proposer complies with the criteria or he/she will not be able to present the idea in mind to the PEAR community; there's always the possibility to address it via the PEAR Dev mailing list. On the other side PEAR Devs could concentrate on the content of the proposal, rather than to be annoyed by the "layout". Furthermore, I suggest that PEPr should reset the status of all "Proposal"s older than 3 or 6 months (?) automatically to "Draft", so to clear this list. A notification to the proposer should be sent by e-mail accordingly. No need for the PEAR Core-QA to respectively comment the proposal or to contact the proposer by other means. What are your feelings about it? I would be prepared to give my input to the people who would be in charge or even join the team, which should accomplish this task of incorporating the suggestions made - if thought of being of added value. Should the PEAR Core-QA Team be addressed directly? -- Stefano -- Stefano F. Rausch (http://pear.php.net/user/sfrausch) has initiated the call for votes on Tools and Utilities::ScriptReorganizer. Voting Will End: 2005-05-31 08:00 UTC. Please review the proposal and give your vote here: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=247