subbukk <subbukk at gmail.com> writes:
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 9:03 pm, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> > > Surely, creating a 20-word abstract shouldn't be too
> > > much of a burden for someone who has put in so much effort into a
> > > project.
> >
> > The burden is on the reviewer and the policy makers: what to do when 20
> > words do not happen or sort of the above example happens.
> There is no need to review. Just nag till a desc is given. For private 
> projects, the description doesn't matter. For public projects, the nag serves 
> to alert a submitter to an oversight.
> 
> BTW, my proposal was tongue in cheek. But given the grevious hurt :-) that 
> lack of comments in Squeak has imposed on beginners, I am afraid the same 
> problem may befall SqueakSource and turn off potential contributors from the 
> larger community.


I don't see this as a likely problem.  SqueakSource is a service with
zero entry costs.  That's a valuable thing for the community.  It also
means, though, that there will probably be an awful lot of cruft on
there.

While it's ultimately up to the fine folks behind SqueakSource, this
all seems fine to me.  It simply means you have to look elsewhere to
find out about what is actively useful and maintained.  We already
have forums for that, though, e.g. the Weekly Squeak.  So personally,
I'd rather SqueakSource stays focussed on what it is good at:
providing project hosting services at the lowest entry cost possible.
So far they have managed to make the costs practically zero, which
makes it a real bargain for Squeak programmers.


Lex Spoon