Posted by pwolanin on May 13, 2010 at 3:27pm
it's a little frustrating that http://groups.drupal.org/fit was approved by the person proposing it when it clearly doesn't meet the general guidelines at http://groups.drupal.org/node/20724
A couple other (less egregious in terms of the guidelines) examples of this have also happened recently, such as http://groups.drupal.org/butler
It seems we need to clarify the moderation policy. I'd like to suggest that moderators should never approve groups they propose themselves, and further that any approval of a group that's obviously outside our normal guidelines needs to have a discussion here first.
Comments
similar to core
I agree, this is similar to core (and some contribs) where people don't commit patches that they wrote themselves.
I can see exceptions to that where the group is obviously appropriate and the admin is trying to get something done quickly (e.g. before a presentation to a group of people or something) but those are extremely rare things.
One other question I have is about the intended longevity of a group. Some groups seem to have limited timeframes where they are useful. Should we allow that? Should we promote group re-use (like a Summer of Code group instead of "Summer of Code 2008")?
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
In general - I think re-use
In general - I think re-use is better than one-time groups.
e.g. the people organizing the 2011 GSOC, might want to reference or re-purpose some of the 2010 posts, or at least read them
They could always make a per-group taxonomy to organize the posts by year if needed.
Looking over the guidelines -
Looking over the guidelines - I don't see how some of my subscribed groups would fit under the four categories; for example, Real Estate, High performance, or Lighttpd. I'm not saying that these groups should not be allowed on g.d.o - I myself am the admin of the latter group - but perhaps we should add a couple more categories to the extent of "Working with Drupal under certain conditions" and "Building Drupal sites for certain audiences."
It's a wiki page - should I just Be Bold?
Perhaps an explicit "Please don't approve your own group proposal" could be added too.
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Well, part of the problem is
Well, part of the problem is also that the text you see when you go to add a group is hard-coded - not being drawn from that wiki page.
We've had any number of the "building sites for X" type groups proposed - we seem to be a bit inconsistent about wehter we approve them or not depending on whether they suggest they are actually building a distro.
We should review some of these groups and see if they are actually getting useful traffic.
figured out the source of the text
That text is in code - which is necessary since the node/add help tip doesn't allow HTML.
So, should we hard code it in there again or point to the Wiki page or...?
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation