Phoenix needs a new maintainer ... are you upto the challenge

[Sproggy]

As some may or may not be aware ... i did promise to continue maintaining Phoenix ... but in light of recent events this is not going to be the case ... as per Official Remasters Thread ... Phoenix has been dropped from the Official list ... even though it meets and exceeds the requirements ...

it is with this that i am asking any forum member who wishes to carry on where i left off to contact Neal or O-P to arrange this ... if you need any of the working files of my artwork please do not hesitate in contacting me i will give you a link to download then ...

Kori

[GermanTux]

Is there a reason why Phoenix is not approved?  Just curious. 

[Hootiegibbon]

Kori,

Send me the art download link via PM, I will can co-ordinate with Neal and O-P on your behalf

Jase

[RobNJ]

Is there a reason why Phoenix is not approved?  Just curious. 

You're not the only one.

[longtom]

as per Official Remasters Thread ... Phoenix has been dropped from the Official list ... even though it meets and exceeds the requirements ...

Could somebody elaborate on this?  Are we throwing out the baby with the bath? ....   

[Hootiegibbon]

Folks,

Due to the non-compliance and defiance of a select few we were forced into the position of having to publish what was previously an unwritten understanding of what the minimum expectations for a community remaster were, further to that publishing further non-compliant/defiant behavior took place when we had asked some remasters to be "brought up to spec".

The above behavior along with the fact would eventually have to "make room" for our 64bit releases, the development team undertook an audit of all community remasters, to ensure they still matched the current remaster guidelines, some for the time being have been removed from the list on this basis.

The exclusion of Phoenix from the list is exactly that, an exclusion to a list - it was not the only one excluded, nor does the exclusion of Phoenix on that list affect support for current installs, there may be a delay for further work to be done to bring it inline with the remastering guidelines as there is lot happening behind the scenes  here at PCLinxusOS , including the new more transparent testing section that all users can now observe and join in with if they wish.

the crux of the matter is that a very few individuals not respecting the requests of the development team and not accepting offers to help them bring there iso's "up to standard" have placed all the community iso's under observation.

thanks for reading and I trust this settles all queries in regard to this matter .

Jase

[longtom]

Folks,

Due to the non-compliance and defiance of a select few we were forced into the position of having to publish what was previously an unwritten understanding of what the minimum expectations for a community remaster were, further to that publishing further non-compliant/defiant behavior took place when we had asked some remasters to be "brought up to spec".

The above behavior along with the fact would soon have to "make room" for our 64bit releases, the development team undertook an audit of all community remasters, to ensure they still matched the current remaster guidelines, some for the time being have been removed from the list on this basis.

The exclusion of Phoenix from the list is exactly that, an exclusion to a list - it was not the only one excluded, nor does the exclusion of Phoenix on that list affect support for current installs, there may be a delay for further work to be done to bring it inline with the remastering guidelines as there is lot happening behind the scenes  here at PCLinxusOS , including the new more transparent testing section that all users can now observe and join in with if they wish.

the crux of the matter is that a very few individuals not respecting the requests of the development team and not accepting offers to help them bring there iso's "up to standard" have placed all the community iso's under observation.

thanks for reading and I trust this settles all queries in regard to this matter .

Jase

Thank you Jase,

I do understand the reason behind whatever is done and it is a pity that those select few bittered the taste.  I still believe we might be throwing out the baby with the bath.  So your explanation does not settle all my queries.

However, I do understand that not everybody wants to read longtom asking strange questions nobody else is interested in and I will happily refrain from pursuing those queries in the public forum.

 

[alex]

Folks,

Due to the non-compliance and defiance of a select few we were forced into the position of having to publish what was previously an unwritten understanding of what the minimum expectations for a community remaster were, further to that publishing further non-compliant/defiant behavior took place when we had asked some remasters to be "brought up to spec".

The above behavior along with the fact would soon have to "make room" for our 64bit releases, the development team undertook an audit of all community remasters, to ensure they still matched the current remaster guidelines, some for the time being have been removed from the list on this basis.

The exclusion of Phoenix from the list is exactly that, an exclusion to a list - it was not the only one excluded, nor does the exclusion of Phoenix on that list affect support for current installs, there may be a delay for further work to be done to bring it inline with the remastering guidelines as there is lot happening behind the scenes  here at PCLinxusOS , including the new more transparent testing section that all users can now observe and join in with if they wish.

the crux of the matter is that a very few individuals not respecting the requests of the development team and not accepting offers to help them bring there iso's "up to standard" have placed all the community iso's under observation.

thanks for reading and I trust this settles all queries in regard to this matter .

Jase

Thank you Jase,

I do understand the reason behind whatever is done and it is a pity that those select few bittered the taste.  I still believe we might be throwing out the baby with the bath.  So your explanation does not settle all my queries.

However, I do understand that not everybody wants to read longtom asking strange questions nobody else is interested in and I will happily refrain from pursuing those queries in the public forum.

 

I still believe we might be throwing out the baby with the bath.  So your explanation does not settle all my queries.
+1
I'm sure this thread will be arbitrarily locked or removed at any moment. As usual.

[GermanTux]

I still believe we might be throwing out the baby with the bath.  So your explanation does not settle all my queries.
+1
I'm sure this thread will be arbitrarily locked or removed at any moment. As usual.

No kidding.  Though I do understand the need to distance the devs from makers of rogue knock-offs - I hardly think Phoenix qualifies. 

[Hootiegibbon]

It really is very simple

When a set of rules is applied or updated - it affects everyone - and has to be applied fairly.

No one has said (as yet) that Phoenix will be removed, it has only been removed from the list of compliant community remasters as it failed meet the outlined criteria, and that failure MAY have had an effect in the future. if an exception is made for one what is the point of even attempting to control a quality standard.

You will see changes in the lineup of iso's because when 64 bit is ready to release there will be double the amount of iso's and the same number of developers. (one less now)

IF folks think that we are "throwing out the baby with the bath" they are wrong , very wrong, it is close to a product recall - in name only the support is there still, and as stated it was not just Pheonix that has been removed from the list

We want all versions of PCLinuxOS to be 100% compatible with all applications in the repo, if there is anything within the iso that could prevent this from taking place the iso has been (for the time being ) removed from one list.

If you want to prevent such quality control issues in teh future , then help out.

Kori still develops Phinx - away from the PCLinuxOS family - and is intending to rebase that project - I whole heartedly support HIS decision in this matter.

Jase

[alex]

Kori still develops Phinx
Jase

Jase thank you for your quick reply and the additional information. I know Kori is developing Phinx. I have used it for sometime.
alex

[GermanTux]

It really is very simple

When a set of rules is applied or updated - it affects everyone - and has to be applied fairly.

No one has said (as yet) that Phoenix will be removed, it has only been removed from the list of compliant community remasters as it failed meet the outlined criteria, and that failure MAY have had an effect in the future. if an exception is made for one what is the point of even attempting to control a quality standard.

You will see changes in the lineup of iso's because when 64 bit is ready to release there will be double the amount of iso's and the same number of developers. (one less now)

IF folks think that we are "throwing out the baby with the bath" they are wrong , very wrong, it is close to a product recall - in name only the support is there still, and as stated it was not just Pheonix that has been removed from the list

We want all versions of PCLinuxOS to be 100% compatible with all applications in the repo, if there is anything within the iso that could prevent this from taking place the iso has been (for the time being ) removed from one list.

If you want to prevent such quality control issues in teh future , then help out.

Kori still develops Phinx - away from the PCLinuxOS family - and is intending to rebase that project - I whole heartedly support HIS decision in this matter.

Jase

Hootie - Thank you.  That explains everything succinctly.  And after developing a better understanding I cna say that the devs have made the right choice.  I'm saddened by your last sentence though - those things usually never go well. 

[Sproggy]

Hootie - Thank you.  That explains everything succinctly.  And after developing a better understanding I cna say that the devs have made the right choice.  I'm saddened by your last sentence though - those things usually never go well. 

dont stress GermanTux ... Phinx will continue ... over 600 d/loads last week and over 300 so far this week ... i will slowly build a user base ... i will produce 1 final iso with PCLOS As it's base when the final of XFCE 4.10 comes out ... then it will be move time ...

[GermanTux]

dont stress GermanTux ... Phinx will continue ... over 600 d/loads last week and over 300 so far this week ... i will slowly build a user base ... i will produce 1 final iso with PCLOS As it's base when the final of XFCE 4.10 comes out ... then it will be move time ...

Sproggy Cougar Mellencamp Rodham Clinton : I have no doubt you will create a nice distro once rebasing, but then you would also have to create new packages.  I'm sorry, that's going to be too much work.  

I do thank you for all your hard work though.  It's been great using Phoenix the past 18 months. 

[ka9yhd]

Folks,

Due to the non-compliance and defiance of a select few we were forced into the position of having to publish what was previously an unwritten understanding of what the minimum expectations for a community remaster were, further to that publishing further non-compliant/defiant behavior took place when we had asked some remasters to be "brought up to spec".

The above behavior along with the fact would eventually have to "make room" for our 64bit releases, the development team undertook an audit of all community remasters, to ensure they still matched the current remaster guidelines, some for the time being have been removed from the list on this basis.

The exclusion of Phoenix from the list is exactly that, an exclusion to a list - it was not the only one excluded, nor does the exclusion of Phoenix on that list affect support for current installs, there may be a delay for further work to be done to bring it inline with the remastering guidelines as there is lot happening behind the scenes  here at PCLinxusOS , including the new more transparent testing section that all users can now observe and join in with if they wish.

the crux of the matter is that a very few individuals not respecting the requests of the development team and not accepting offers to help them bring there iso's "up to standard" have placed all the community iso's under observation.

thanks for reading and I trust this settles all queries in regard to this matter .

Jase

Jase:
Then why not deal with the non-conformers instead of making life difficult for the rest of us?