Leo Simons wrote on Monday, June 14, 2004 4:01 PM: > Cliff Schmidt wrote: >> The more quantitative it is, the more a new project can know what >> they have ahead of them and the less familiarity with the project's >> community is required to cast an informed vote on graduation (just >> look up the numbers). > > I know an example or two of unhealthy communites where all the numbers > look just fine. Its just not possible to decide these things based on > numbers. People interactions are only "measurable" on a statistical > scale, which we don't have.
I completely agree; this is exactly what I'm concerned with. I was just trying to (in case this wasn't clear to anyone) describe two different approaches to the problem. The other approach: Cliff Schmidt wrote: > The less quantitative the rules are, the more > room the voting members have to consider the "know it when you see > it" view of the community. is necessary to some extent, IMO. Hence my suggestion that: > Personally, I'd like to see one or two quantitative rules (such as one > about independent committers to allow for vetoes) and then leave the > rest up to a voting body that will evaluate graduation against some > general guidelines. Cliff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
