<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I completely agree, if you
look at sourceforge, you have a project activity level and download
count. At Mozilla plugins you have a ranking system.<br>
If we could get something like that for the Drupal modules, it would be
easier for someone to decide if it is worthwhile to use or integrate a
module in a site. <br>
<br>
Otherwise it's just a bunch of modules....<br>
</font><br>
DragonWize wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f5b352220803191054ybdc2352q74824c59ec4c91ba@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I see both sides point here. It is where the human components that
have made this issue unresolved and probably never will be fully
resolved.
There are many definitions of what an "unmaintained", "defunct",
"different vision" module is. Some would say if a maintainer answers a
few issues the module is still being maintained even though it hasn't
been updated in a year. Some would say updates 2 times a year is not
enough. Some would say that patches are denied means that it should be
branched.As has been brought up of late, the Drupal community is
growing at tremendous rates. With that growth comes all kinds of
people.
It is hard to determine whether it is a module maintainer or a patch
submitter is the the one in the right when it come down to a
disagreement. As this is open source we have always put the
responsibility with the maintainer (as it should be). Some people work
well with others, some people work OK with others, and some do not
work well with others. I think that trying to force people together is
not a good idea. Currently, we highly suggest it and it is (as far as
I can tell) deeply ingrained into the community to not duplicate. That
is enough I think.
I don't think that changing the "scratch your own itch" method by
forcing module maintainers to be full software companies providing
constant support and thinking of their users even when it is not good
for them is the answer. I also don't think forcing others that have an
itch to "take what there is" or to not be able to take advantage of
the fine Drupal community and d.o resources just because there is
another module that does something similar.
The main problem with this is from an end user's perspective. Trying
to find the best module for what you need is hard to do. So I think
the best solution to this is one that is focused on making that
experience better without changing the open source model. Many things
have been suggested in this area, ratings, download stats, commit and
issue metrics, re-structuring the downloads section, similar modules
blocks, forum chatter blocks, etc. I don't know the best solution but
my bet is that it would be along these lines.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>