Re: new module decisions [was Re: gnome-screensaver]

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:34 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > So, what
> > > > if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get
> > > > accepted and base our decisions on that?
> > > >
> > > > For instance, we could have:
> > > > * uses at least basic platform libs (GTK mainly)
> > > > * uses existing platform libraries for everything possible (that is,
> > > > does not use libs implementing an already existing feature in GNOME
> > > > platform)
> > > > * follows GNOME standards (coding standards, freedesktop specs, HIG,
> > > > documentation, licensing, release dates and freezes, etc)
> > > > * is source in GNOME CVS?
> > > >
> > > > If we have a complete and concise list, the decision is easy to be made,
> > > > since you just have to tick or not the corresponding column in the list.
> > > > When all columns are ticked, the module gets accepted.
> > >
> > > This strikes me as totally wrong, focusing only on certain, not very
> > > interesting aspects of the modules. Much more important are things like:
> > >
> > it was just an example
> >
> > > * Does it conflict/compete/overlap with other software in the desktop
> > > * Does it integrate with the desktop
> > > * Is it good, interesting software
> > > * Is this something that we think is important for a desktop to contain.
> > >
> > good, now we have a more complete list
> 
> My list in the GEP includes all this and more ;)
> 
yeah, I think your list + some "evaluation team" scrutiny could work
much better than looking for complete consensus on the mailing list.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>