On 10/25/2006 7:52:03 PM, Chris Kennedy (chrisken@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
Back to the original topic, I recommend that any project description revisions be conducted as informal "reviews" that are posted to the module's issue queue and can then be accepted, rejected, or modified by the maintainer. This preserves the contributors' autonomy while encouraging quality improvements. I do agree that the module descriptions are often of poor quality.
I gotta be honest here.. If I need to file and monitor an issue for every little change, I'm unvolunteering. That's entirely too much work. I went ahead and started this about an hour ago, starting at Z and working my way up. I made sure revisions was checked and notified the author of the one I made fairly substantial formatting changes to. If someone doesn't like what I've done, they can always revert it. Mostly all I'm doing is adding a break tag and maybe moving things around just a bit so the new teaser makes sense. I'm not completely rewriting their descriptions unless I find one that's just horrible and then I'll talk to the maintainer first. Michelle