On Sb, 29 ian 11, 13:09:32, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to make the descriptions on children-distros consistent,
> suggested format:
>
> <p><a href="http://example.com";>example</a> is... one paragraph
> overview of the goals and information about the distro</p>
> <p><a href="http://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census/Example";>More
> info...</a></p>
>
> We should try to rewrite any descriptions given to us to make them
> more clear and less like advertising.
>
> The Debian website mentions a lot of inactive Debian derivatives,
> including some as long dead as Corel Linux or Progeny.
>
> I would suggest that for all distros that are dead, inactive or no
> longer directly based on Debian we should:
>
> Remove their blurb from children-distros
>
> Remove their Derivatives/Census/ page if it exists (a thought for the future).
>
> Maybe add a link to the distrowatch page in the section about inactive
> distros. Not sure how to decide if the link gets added or not.
>
> Any thoughts?
There are similar issues with other parts of the site featuring a list
of persons or organizations that are somehow related to Debian. I'm
thinking of:
CD/vendors/
consultants/
misc/children-distros
users/
(but I might be forgetting something)
AFAICT all of them accept submissions from third-parties (which is why I
didn't include partners/), which are then checked and maybe
adjusted/corrected and then included on the website. Old submissions
might be inaccurate or not valid anymore.
At least from my perspective (trying to maintain consultants/) it is
boring work to have to rewrite by hand everything that the consultants
submit and some of the checks we do could be automated.
I think a generalised solution is needed where:
* the third party submits the entry via a form (I understand CD/vendors
already has that)
* a computer checks some basic stuff:
- the e-mail address is valid
- the webpage is valid and mentions "Debian" (at least for
consultants/)
* the entry is then added (maybe commented out or with a 'checked=no"
field or something)
* a human makes a final check and enables or removes it
* periodic automated checks are performed (ex. for consultants/ not
responding to the listed e-mail in 4 weeks is enough reason for
removal, this should be easy to automate)
* submitters can perform a completely automated removal if still having
access to the submitted e-mail address
* make a joint team to deal with requests
Thoughts?
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature