[geeklog-modules] Modules after SF.net

[Tom Willett]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:20:16 -0600, Tony Bibbs wrote
> For those of you module developers that aren't quite in "the know" we 
> have a new Project and CVS server that we plan on using in our efforts 
> to ditch sf.net.  It's on a dual Xeon 1.7 server that is RAID5'd. I'd 
> like to eventually see some of you move your projects over to 
> http://project.geeklog.net once we get all those features working and 
> also start using  our CVS server.  Also, I'm looking for a volunteer to 
> take a night backup of CVS and any databases.  The idea is I'd set up a 
> script to do the back up and then push the resulting tarballs to another 
> server as a back up.
> 
> Anyway, one of the big complaints we get from users is all are modules, 
> etc are dispersed and they want one place for all this stuff.  So, to be 
> clear, what we want to do is move all modules code from sf.net to our 
> servers then put all downloads into the file management plugin on the 
> new www.geeklog.net site (once we launch that).  You module developers 
> would get your own project space in CVS in case you are wondering (no 
> shell acces, though).
> 
> Chew on all this and dump any feedback you have to this list.
> 
> --Tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-modules mailing list
> geeklog-modules at lists.geeklog.net
> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-modules
I will have no problem with moving my stuff to the official geeklog cvs.  I 
also think it is a good idea to centralize the distribution of geeklog and 
its addons.

There is one issue that needs to be addressed and there is no easy solution 
to it.  Many open-source development teams struggle with it.  The issue is 
the status of the software held in cvs and offered for download.  If the 
downloads and cvs are handled by the geeklog team and served by the geeklog 
server, then they would take on an 'official' or 'authorized' status.  If 
these addons them become 'official', someone from the geeklog team will have 
to take the time to evaluate them and decide which ones are 'authorized' and 
which ones are not.  Or which ones get into cvs and which ones do not.

With an active addon community, this can amount to a large investment in 
time and effort.  Do we really want the geeklog development team spending 
their time evaluating other peoples software?  No.  If one person is 
delegated this job to make the process easier, then it can become their own 
little fiefdom and their own little hell. (I do not want the job of deciding 
whose work is official and whose is not!)

My approach to this is has been to open up the gplugs site to anyone who 
wants to use the services.  I thereby avoid the conflict, by making no value 
judgments on code quality.  I do not think that this should be the approach 
taken by the geeklog projects cvs and download servers.  Any attempt, 
however, to designate some coders efforts as 'authorized' and others as not 
can too easily result in hurt feelings and conflict.

I propose the following scenario:

Develop a set of concrete criteria for inclusion in the 'authorized' 
archive.  Make these criteria specific so that it will take little time to 
evaluate a piece of software.  Give the developers, an incentive to make 
their software 'authorized', e.g. allow them to display an 'authorized' 
logo, give them space on the geeklog cvs server, add their software to 
the 'authorized' list of downloads.  

Make it easy for a developer to find these specifications and submit their 
software for 'authorization'.  To facilitate this and at the same time 
maintain some control, maintain a separate space, perhaps on sf.net 
providing support for unauthorized addons and hacks, with the intent of 
funneling these developers into the authorized channel.  It is important 
that the path to authorization be made clear.

Anyway you do it, it means more work managing people.  The question is what 
will be the least work and result in the most benefit?

Tom
--
Tom Willett
tomw at pigstye.ne