3
Very good points.
Quote:
I mean - I'd be happy to comment and give my evaluation of the usefulness of a certain project, but the power of deciding (and hence the responsibility to make good decisions) which are good projects and which are not... I'm not sure that is a responsibility that I would like to have.
I believe what would be a good "role" of Core Team members in this situation is more of an advisory role. One of the goals of the scriptlance site should be to lessen the burden on the Core Team. Therefore, if Core Team members only act as advisors to ensure that core hacks do not pose security or compatibility risks, they would not have to make the final call. That would be left to the scriptlance manager(s) to hash out.
I believe a wise idea would be to include a disclaimer on the project submission page that indicated that not all projects are approved. That projects must meet a certain set of criterion before approval. This would be to ensure that the results of the project do not create security vulnerabilities or forward compatibility issues, hence cutting down on the number of support requests.
Some people might not like that idea. My thinking is, if you want dirty hacks done, go somewhere else. If you want the job done right, come to the scriptlance site.
Insanity can be defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Stupidity is not a crime. Therefore, you are free to go.