Unofficial PEAR meeting summary (was Re: [PEAR-QA] Package status)
| From: | Klaus Guenther | Date: | Tue, 04 May 2004 21:47:00 +0000 |
| Subject: | Unofficial PEAR meeting summary (was Re: [PEAR-QA] Package status) | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev php.pear.qa |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-qa+get-1202@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
From: "Lorenzo Alberton" <l.alberton@quipo.it>
> Is that a definitive rule, now, after the meeting?
Afaik, versioning did not come up more than just being mentioned while
something else was being discussed.
Now.... here's an unofficial rundown of the meeting as I remember it,
crosschecked with the IRC log. Someone else will have to officially
summarize the meeting based on the audio. Read at your own risk :-)
The meeting basically first covered pearweb:
- comments on the manual (final outcome: +1)
(COMMENT_QUEUE_SYSTEM)
Apparently, this was referring to a system similar to what peardoc has
- wiki inside pearweb was voted down
(WIKI_INSIDE_PEARWEB)
A separate wiki was discussed
- package rating system (final outcome: overwhelming -1, 2x +0 ;)
(RATING_SYSTEM)
Then documentation:
- API documentation as separate entity received strong support
(API_DOCUMENTATION_SEPARATED_FROM_USER_DOCUMENTATION)
- Translation of API docs was voted down
(API_DOCUMENTATION_TRANSLATION)
Then the QA system came up, and quite a few comments were made. No votes.
It was apparently decided without vote that the pearweb section of the RFC
should be removed. Why there was no vote on this is unclear.
Finally, the Group was discussed, which was rather uncomfortable for Lukas,
at least.
At least on IRC there was a discussion that pear-dev should have a vote in
the group. Lukas responded that if that indeed is the case, the group has a
serious problem. The final decision was that there is a lot of rumor out
there that the group doesn't have credibility, etc., but there are few who
will actually say something concrete. Lukas cleared up the status of Thomas,
who has been out of contact for a while. He also talked about the group
putting members who are away on hold, but not removing them from the Group
(i.e., they don't vote, etc., but when they once again have time, they can
simply request reactivation).
The IRC chat closed with an expression of confidence in Stig's leadership
and the level of trust he enjoys in the pear community.
No other decisions were made.
Klaus