The idea of this site is not to provide CFEngine authoritative policy, but to accumulate ideas and get a peer review, as you mention. Eventually, we might cherry pick some of these and support them, but that is not yet planned in detail.
On 12/30/2011 01:48 PM, Trond Hasle Amundsen wrote: > no-re...@cfengine.com writes: > >> This is one of the main reasons that we are being very careful about >> this. Anything that has the "CFEngine stamp of approval" on it needs >> to be top quality. We are putting together some guidelines for how >> this will work, to find a balance between comprehensiveness, agility >> and quality. Community peer-review, as Neil says, will play an >> important role in it. > I'm a bit sceptical to cfengine.com taking responsibility for a site > like this. It may lead to too much control and quality assurance on part > of cfengine.com, for fear of customers complaining that examples etc. on > the site don't work for them, i.e. "You published it, you fix it". > >> I'll post some of the general ideas once we have them in a more >> concrete form. > Looking forward to it, and I hope you prove my statements above wrong :) > > It is very important to have a low threshold for publishing stuff on > such a site, to encourage the community to participate. On the other > hand, quality is also important. Finding the right balance can be a > challenge. > > I agree with Neil about community peer-review. This can eliminate > cfengine.com becoming a bottleneck for quality assurance. But if done > wrong, it may become a bottleneck in itself. Again, it is a question of > finding the right balance. > > Cheers, -- CTO and Founder CFEngine http://www.cfengine.com http://www.markburgess.org _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
