[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 12:23:28 UTC 2008

For quite some time, we have had people arguing for the closure of projects.
I have seen many arguments pro and against closures. What has been missing
in all these projects are objective criteria why it makes sense to find
fault with a project.

I have come up with three objective arguments.

   - A project is not what it is advertised to be. For instance when a
   language is always written in a particular script, a project in any other
   script is problematic.
   - A project does not have at least 90% of the most relevant messages
   localised. For your information there are only 498 messages in this category
   at the moment.
   - A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there is nothing
   to see what is the point ?

The first argument is an absolute, never mind the size.

For the second and third I would argue for closure when both conditions are
not met. When there is activity in either it may be reason for giving an
ultimatum. The ultimatum would be that both conditions need to be met within
three months.

The most important reason why we need viable projects is because it is sad
to see so much time wasted by good people on projects that have little or no
objective value. No value because nobody actively cares. Yes, people may
come along and get an interest and eventually they will, but time of
valuable people is wasted now and that provides in my opinion a really
strong extra argument.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list