Hey all,

Razor and I have been discussing the submission procedure for the OJP, and would like some feedback from everybody else on this...

My suggestion is to make sure new 'potential' submissions are clearly posted here in this forum. And that means ANY potential submission - even relatively minor ones.

Then, we allow a set time for OJP contributors to voice any potential concerns about any given contribution. If nothing is said about it (or anything said is positive) after the given time, then the contribution is officially accepted by the OJP.

However, if a majority of OJP contributors don't think the submission is appropiate - for whatever reason (lack of quality etc.) then the submission cannot be accepted - at least at that time. Perhaps it could be after alteration...

I have suggested a week as the time given to 'vote' on any given submission.

Non-contributors to the OJP are also welcome to comment on submissions, and certainly should be taken notice of (these are our 'customers' after all!!), but they do not count as 'official' votes...

What does everybody think? If you are a contributor (or are thinking of contributing) how much input do you want into screening submissions?

My feeling is - since this is an Open project, is that it really should be fairly open...

I agree that we need to be public about the submissions and that the contributors need a way to overrule the moderators, but I don't think the contributors should have an inital say in the matter. It simply slows down and muttles the process

If certain contributors want to have immediate yes/no votes on new submissions, they need to sign up as moderators and keep active with submission handling.

I can see why you don't want the contributors initial opinion as far as dealing with any pointless discussions, however, if they do not have the opportunity to prove whether or not their opinion is pointless or not, you'll never know & could be jeopardizing the submission of a benefitial contribution.

In other words, I think everyone should have a say so in any matter. You never know when someone might come out of the blue with a comment that might make you &/or others see things in a different light.

I am also a little dodgy on the whole purpose for voting thing. I mean, you should have a set amount of rules & if they comply with those rules, it should be submitted. I realize that there is no way to cover every area, however, it is a start.

Most people do not read through everything, nor take the time to gather a good amount of information regarding any subject. So having people vote on a matter they don't even know the whole story to, is a little pointless IMO.

Of course, I may have some misconceptions about what it is you guys are saying which I get the feeling I am, but I am trying. :-)

Well, you have a point. Not everyone will give informed votes. That's partially why I think the moderators should handle it.

If someone wants to have a immediate yes/no vote on the submissions, they need to become a moderator.

Anyway, the purpose of public review of the submissions is to let the public know about new features and get feedback.

So far, it's really been a "whatever Razor Ace thinks" (with some limited public feedback) since noone else is doing the submissions work or even using the CVS repository. That's fine with me :) but I'm interested in what's best for the community overall.