[development] Encouraging Collaboration

[Jose A. Reyero]

Dan Robinson wrote:

>2) Core vs. Contrib - This pattern seems to be mainly about general vs.
>specific - but it is also about quality vs. quantity.  It seems that
>quality vs. quantity needs more attention.
>3) Who is this product for?  Drupal is a very mature product - but it
>seems like it hasn't grown up yet :) - which is kinda cool - and kinda
>infuriating.  I think that there needs to be a better definition of who
>this product is for - is it for the people who spend most of their time
>developing/contributing to it?  Is it for web developers? Is it for
>webmasters? Is it for end-users?  
>
I'd say "Drupal is for everybody"...but what I think needs some
definition is the concept of "Drupal", "Drupal core" and who/what it is
for... Then we can build on that, maybe having some distributions. I've
post some other e-mail abt core vs. distributions..

Actually I'd point all new users who have trouble setting up Drupal,
directly to CivicSpace -which I do sometimes :-)
But in general, we should build upon the idea of 'distributions' better
than 'making Drupal core user friendly'

>4) How do things get done around here?  The only sure way to do anything
>is to do it yourself - which is fine - but it limits participation (see
>3 above).  There are a bunch of different possible solutions to any
>given problem (like the one pointed out in Allie's email).  However
>without a roadmap it is difficult to know which way to go.
>
>  
>
Yes, a roadmap would be great. And some more organization and
coordination too -but not too much :-).
 Actually there's been a number of posts lately about how we could
better organize ourselves.

>Here are some specific things that might work to solve this problem -
>
>1) Right now there are three module categories -> core, modules,
>sandbox.  Perhaps there should be another? "community modules" - being
>stuff that the "community" endorses?   Perhaps by a straight up or down
>vote of contributors? I know this is radical.
>
>  
>
I'd like to have:
- core: minimum cms engine with few basic modules
- standard modules: a few more than the ones that are currently in core,
but these must be the ones maintanined by core developers with 'core
quality'
- contributed modules: all the rest
(and same for themes)

As you can see, my idea is not based on ratings -which would be nice to
have anyway- , but on who with which standards maintains it.

IMHO ratings provided by users  are too prone to put features before
quality and stability.

>2) There could be a "reviews" blog attached directly to each module -
>I'm sure this is an old discussion - sorry for bringing it up again.  I
>would love to see Allie's notes from her investigation of the "Amazon"
>modules so I knew what was in and not in each module.
>  
>
Let´s bring it up again and again until its there :-)
I haven't used too much the 'project module' but my question is: as
'projects' seem to be nodes, is it that difficult to enable comments
-call it reviews- on them?