Log message #530453

# At Username Text
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 jperras (read as in past tense, "I read the post")
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 jperras I agree with the '1 rating'
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 jperras alkemann: read the wiki post
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 gwoo some purge would be good
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 gwoo yeah
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:04 alkemann gwoo: about existing bakery and article. i assume we want to take some. are we going to take all? might be a good opppertunity for a purge. what sense in having strict quality rules if we start out with a lot of sub par.
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:01 alkemann would still need a system of x amount of votes and at least one moderator or higher though
# Feb 17th 2009, 13:00 alkemann yea that could work
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 gwoo it goes live
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 gwoo and if the bakers rate the article >= 4
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 gwoo so "bakers" get to rate the article before the "public"
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 gwoo and would make things simpler
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:57 gwoo actually 1 rating might work
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:55 alkemann gwoo: rvv's ideas use jsut one rating though, and lets articles be published with ratings. do u feel one or two is best?
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:53 gwoo alkemann: no i have not seen mariano_iglesias around here
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:52 alkemann gwoo: heard from mariano_iglesias about when he will have time do write use cases?
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 alkemann hmm.. did i forget to log of work?
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 gwoo alkemann yes
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:50 alkemann1 my suggestion is that we agree that a behind the scenes system for publishing is good and specc/build it in a manner that lets us tweak the rules as we test it
# Feb 17th 2009, 12:46 alkemann1 gwoo: u see the wiki update?
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 alkemann laters :)
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 ADmad k ttyl
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 jperras alkemann: thanks for the link, I'll give it a read
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 alkemann anyways. time to head home from work
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 alkemann also, we have the select few system now and it is not working in regards to QA..
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:54 alkemann select few with power means that things are pubished only at their leisure
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 ADmad alkemann: ?
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 alkemann ADmad: doing something about bottlenecks are also a point though
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 ADmad i dont want crap like this to be published at all http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/filling-a-select-with-tree-behavoir
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 ADmad rvv: yes i personally don't mind if only a select few have the power to make an article available to general public
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 alkemann well the goal should be that no bad practises are published :)
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 rvv I do like the side effect of all articles being rated, because it can be very hard for a noob to tell articles with good practices from those with bad
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:48 ADmad rvv: yeah... say for eg. a core member's vote will have more weight than a moderator
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:47 rvv ADmad: yeah, I agree.. I only mentioned it because it was my original idea, but I think the 2nd approach would be quite viable. especially if augmented with some "special" users' votes weight more to offset the problem of articles requiring many votes to be published
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:43 ADmad alkemann: yeah i checked... the first option is a bit overkill imo
# Feb 17th 2009, 08:42 alkemann ADmad: jperras: http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting
# Feb 17th 2009, 02:44 alkemann http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting
# Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 alkemann ronny he said he would do a write up of his original idea tomorrow morning
# Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 alkemann copy pasted log of this into wiki. http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting
# Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 ADmad some value divided by no. of moderators ?
# Feb 16th 2009, 15:13 alkemann not sure i agree with only positive votes.. with it, eventually all articles could be published