"hacking the social system"

[Nathan Olberding]

Maybe we could start by reading up on the guidelines and rating
applications ourselves? We could present our results to the larger
group as a way of saying, "here's evidence of what's wrong, it
wouldn't take much to fix it, and we'd love to help. In the future, we
think it'd be a good idea to have this sort of scrutiny be part of the
release process." At that point, if the study and message were well
written and well received, someone would need to be appointed this
workload.

If someone wants to start a little project to make a one-time rating
of KDE-app guideline-compliance, I'd love to help.

On 5/5/05, James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj at acm.org> wrote:
> Nathan Olberding wrote:
> > As far as the UI guidelines- shouldn't this be a simple choice for the
> > release managers? Couldn't they say, "No, fix this thing here and
> > here, then we'll consider it properly implemented and can add this
> > program 'konqueror' to the final release."?
> 
> It appears that way to me.  That there should be a KDE UI Standards
> "Gate Keeper" to validate conformance at least some minimum level before
> the current HEAD is migrated to the BRANCH for the next release.
> 
> --
> JRT
> 


-- 
-NKO-