This is going to be one of those discussions we always have like backwards compatibility between major versions.<br><br>Yes, the main point is there are way too few people helping review applications. I do agree that whoever is reviewing always needs to be compassionate and be able to justly explain his or her decision, which currently doesn't always happen.<br>
<br>Just because someone can follow CVS licensing doesn't mean I should approve a better_views module or a better_cck module. This is also our opportunity to prevent duplicate or unnecessary modules, the latter being a fine line. A small, trivial 10-line customization that runs hook_form_alter() should be approved?<br>
<br>This needs effort from all sides:<br>1. CVS admins/reviewers to always be helpful and make sound decisions since it is usually the applicant's beginning attempt at contributing code.<br>2. The existing community (the 8 non-CVs admins) to actually care about the new members and help with application review. This only happens where there are problems. If people were looking at the CVS applications and chime in and say
"Wow, I've always needed this. This would make a great module," that would make the decision easier for the admins and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.<br>3. CVS applicants always submitting thoughtful and thorough application. I think Andrew falls into this case, but there are a lot that don't. Makes the job harder for both 1 and 2.<br>
<br>See <a href="http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements">http://drupal.org/cvs-application/requirements</a> and <br><br clear="all">Dave Reid<br><a href="mailto:dave@davereid.net">dave@davereid.net</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bill Fitzgerald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill@funnymonkey.com">bill@funnymonkey.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
A quick observation here, and feel free to flame this mercilessly [1].<br>
<br>
As I see it, the purpose of the review of application should be to determine whether the applicant will comply with the d.o requirements regarding licensing, etc -- it should *not* be to judge the merits of the proposed module.<br>
<br>
In this case, and in others I have seen, people have been unnecessarily hassled during the CVS application process.<br>
<br>
As a community, we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we hassle/turn away developers, especially when we are turning them away for invalid reasons.<br>
<br>
If Andrew hadn't posted to the Dev list, his good idea would not have had the opportunity to make it into the community. I wonder how many other good ideas have been lost for the exact same reason.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
[1]. Yes, I know that there are a small number of people triaging a large number of CVS applications.<br>
<br>
Andrew Schulman wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
You could always build it out as a contrib module, though. It sounds pretty<br>
useful.<br>
</blockquote>
Thanks. Unfortunately, when I tried that the CVS masters said that my proposed<br>
module was "too simple" to justify granting me an account<br>
(<a href="http://drupal.org/node/606962" target="_blank">http://drupal.org/node/606962</a>).<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This has been rectified.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Gerhard<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
Andrew.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>