Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.

[Mike McGrath]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fedora-infrastructure-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:fedora-
> > infrastructure-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
> > To: Fedora Infrastructure
> > Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
> > > barrier to enter low but the quality high.  Certainly there's
> > projects
> > > that don't need to be updated every 6 months but we can identify
> > those and
> > > deal accordingly.
> >
> > How about 'delisting' instead of deleting?  I'm operating under the
> > assumption that the infrastructure burden of hosting the project isn't
> > the problem you're trying to solve, and that keeping the projects at
> > fedora hosted relevant is.
> >
> > A delisted project simply wouldn't appear on the main fedora hosted
> > list of projects, but would still be available via direct link.  That
> > way, nothing is lost, but the clutter vanishes.
> >
> > You could even have yet another category for projects that are known
> > to be abandoned.
> >
>
> What about using a Sourceforge-style project classification scheme? Allow
> projects to self-identify their status (Alpha, Beta, Stable, Abandoned,
> etc.). That would allow us to craft policies around project updates that are
> more in line with their current development status. It would also allow us
> to filter the main project page according to development status.
>
> For example: maybe alpha projects need to be updated at least every 3-6
> months, but stable projects would only need a minimum of a yearly or
> bi-yearly update to be considered "actively maintained."
>

Actually re-reading this I think people are confused about my intent.
We're going to contact the individuals to let them know their options.  If
they really want to keep the repo around and they have a good reason,
it'll probably stay around.  not all repos are active every 6 months but
they are still important projects.  However there are probably lots of
projects that don't fit into this category, and they're more then welcome
to host their projects elsewhere.  As I explained earlier its not a hard
and fast rule, we just reserve the right to remove it.

	-Mike