chore: sharpen the requirements for new community services/resource#262
chore: sharpen the requirements for new community services/resource#262steven-noorbergen merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
This should make it easier to evaluate whether a new service/resource complies with the requirements.
|
@esi/ecm For your visibility. We updated the requirements a bit, as we found it a bit unclear what "released" meant. So we made it time-based. Although this isn't ideal, at least it is less subjective, making it easier to judge whether a service can be added to the list. If you have better ideas or suggestions here, please do yell :) |
| 3. Your service/resource must be a public service/resource. :material-information-outline:{ title="This listing is not meant for private services." } | ||
| 4. Your service/resource must be considered production-ready. :material-information-outline:{ title="Is your service/resource usable by the general EVE public" } | ||
| 5. Your service/resource must be public for at least three months. | ||
| 6. Your service/resource must be actively maintained in the last year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ccp-pinky Is point 6 meant to be a criteria for remaining on the list, as opposed to a criteria for getting listed? I think the intent isn't too clear.
Maybe "Your service/resource may get removed from the list if it's left unmaintained for a year."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar with point 2, if you get banned from the game or something, your DLA can be revoked. This too would mean you could be removed from the list.
Or when you change your service from being a public one to being a private one.
Basically, this list is not only something you have to comply with when adding your service, but also while your service is listed.
That said, this clearly isn't obvious when reading this section, so I will see if we can add some sugar to get that point across a bit better :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My point was just that it sounds like "you need to have been working on your service for at least a year before it can be added", which isn't the intent I believe.
3 participants
This should make it easier to evaluate whether a new service/resource complies with the requirements.