Re: [directory-discuss] Review/Submitted fields

[Ian Kelling]

John Sullivan <address@hidden> writes:

> Ian Kelling <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> David Hedlund <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> I think these fields are redundant since the job is already done by the
>>> page history that lists names and dates.
>>>
>>> |Last review by=
>>>
>>> |Last review date=
>>>
>>> |Submitted by=
>>>
>>> |Submitted date=
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do we have them at all?
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we nuke these fields for the next Debian meta-data sync that will
>>> occur within a few weeks/months?
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Last reviewed by isn't necessarily reflected in history, but we have
>> approved revs, which means someone somewhat trusted has reviewed the
>> entire entry and the edits, so I think the it's downside of making the
>> editing process tedious and confusing is greater than whatever value it
>> adds.
>
> The fields have historical value, so definite no to "nuking" them. Some
> (most?) entries have never been updated in the wiki after being imported
> from the previous incarnation of the Directory, so the info needs to be
> preserved for them.

I wasn't thinking of removing them from existing entries, good
clarification.

>
> The thing to consider is whether to remove them from the new entry
> template. But also not convinced there. A "Last review" is not the same
> thing as "Last change". "Last change" could just be updating the version
> number on the program without reviewing any of the other info. "Last
> review" is meant to stand for the last time an entry was actually
> reasonably thoroughly checked for compliance with FSD criteria. Also,
> how easy is it to search in MW based on info like changes to Entries by
> a particular user or all the Entries which have not had a change since
> $DATE?
>
> -john

What you describe "last reviewed" to mean is actually done by a different
field, license verification date.

The tooltip for "last reviewed" says "Change this date in case you have
made substantial edits or have updated the version". There are no other
instructions that I see anywhere. So I think it generally describes what
that tooltip says. I've clicked it hundreds of times and I'm convinced
it's more trouble than it's worth.

According to
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Software_Directory:Requirements, our
basic requirements are that it's free software, free docs, and runs on
gnu. So, license verification covers "free". Runs on gnu doesn't
need a separate field, it's checked on initial review, rarely changes
and you would often notice if it doesn't when you do a license
verification.

You didn't mention "Submitted by", I assume you agree we can remove that
from the form.

-- 
Ian Kelling | Senior Systems Administrator, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: B125 F60B 7B28 7FF6 A2B7  DF8F 170A F0E2 9542 95DF
https://fsf.org | https://gnu.org