Debtags and Blends tasks pages

[Ben Armstrong]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:30:13 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille <tillea at rki.de> wrote:
> What do you have in mind by "strict" control?

A QA process to ensure that only "approved" debtags make it out to the
users, governed by some official body (probably including both the
debtags team and the team for the Blend itself).  I can see that for
some Blends this might be quite important. For Debian Jr., I am not so
sure.

> I fail to see what you mean with democratic.  Could you try to
> explain in more technical terms?

It's not a technical issue.  It's a social one.  Choosing packages that
might be enjoyed by children is highly subjective.  If there's some
sloppiness in that process, is it that important?  In the end, even
after we've made our recommendations it is up to the individual
children and their guides to decide which packages they enjoy and will
keep using.

Who do we want to "own" the problem of making this determination, the
developers or the users themselves?  The answer is probably a bit of
both.  So how strict do we need the QA process to be?  If the QA team
is made up entirely of developers, then this may be a barrier for user
participation.  That is, if there is sufficient delay between a user
making a recommendation and the recommendation becoming publicly
visible, the user might lose interest in the excercise and stop
contributing.  If the barrier for participation in the recommendation
process is lowered, we may end up with more people involved and
ultimately, better quality choices because of it.

But maybe I'm wrong about this and the whole issue of QA is orthogonal
with structuring our Blend to allow maximum input from users for
package recommendations via debtags.

Ben
--
 ,-.  nSLUG    http://www.nslug.ns.ca   synrg at sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
 \`'  Debian   http://www.debian.org    synrg at debian.org
  `          [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]