[Savannah-hackers-public] rejection policy impact

[Ivan Zaigralin]

Thanks so much, assaf :)

You are right, this seems adequate, thanks a bunch for making these changes. I 
think the placement of "but is ultimately at the discretion of Savannah 
hackers" is still not ideal, but now it's visible enough to a first-time 
submitter.

Moving forward, I was thinking about doing a survey of rejected submissions 
with the goal of determining both the objective scope (count, byte size) and 
the subjective scope (specific reasons given) of past rejections. I believe 
this is a necessary first step, since we would want to see what the standing 
policy in fact accomplishes before we even try to replace it with something 
else.

This will probably take a while. I am assuming I can see all the past 
rejections, but if I hit a wall, I will give you a shout. During this time, I 
would love to hear suggestions about an effective way of conducting this 
survey, or any ideas, really, pertaining to this policy discussion.

On Thursday, March 09, 2017 16:26:34 Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:41:51PM -0800, Ivan Zaigralin wrote:
> > The requirements page should definitely list requirements which are very
> > different from those in other popular hosting services, do Savannah admins
> > agree with that?
> 
> I don't. The requirements page should list the hosting requirements.
> That's it. Differences and interpretations can be expanded upon
> elsewhere (which is the Wiki page "how to get your projects approved
> quickly").
> 
> > [...] the programs are required to be good enough in the eyes of
> > individual Savannah administrators, do Savannah admins agree with
> > that?
> 
> Yes, and it is now stated so in the two pages we've mentioned.
> 
> >https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
> >
> >Here's one way to keep things concise:
> >
> >Non-GNU projects are reviewed by Savannah hackers, who can exercise
> >judgment, and are not required to accept every project submission that
> >meets the technical requirements listed above.
> >
> >What do you think?
> 
> First,
> this is incomplete description: ALL projects are reviewed and all
> projects must pass subjective evalation, both gnu and non-gnu.
> It is simply the case that evaluation is done by different people for
> each type. To repeat: ALL projects hosted on savannah have been
> subjectively reviewed and approved.
> 
> Second,
> The fact that all projects require a review process is now clearly
> mentioned in the last section of the requirements page,
> with links to details about the review process for gnu and non-gnu.
> Those further details expand upon the review process, including
> exercising the judgement of the reviewers.
> 
> regards,
>  - assaf

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.