Add www.drupro.com to the Planet

The feed URL is http://www.drupro.com/blog/tag/drupal-planet/feed.

I think 3 posts are too few, to add the feed to Drupal Planet.

I have to say I stumbled on drupros blog due to corbachos link in another issue, and I don't see why this shouldn't get into the Planet feed. They have four posts now, if I didn't count wrong, and all of them look useful to me. Also love the design. I'm a very regular reader of the Planet and would love to see this blog show up.

I'm with #3- and I have to say, I'm finding the blanket dismissal of perfectly valid feeds a bit distressing. This feed is ready to be added, even though they still only have 3 posts.

The feed is supposed to have more than 3 posts; this is why the status is needs work.
In comment #2, the OP reported he would bump this issue once the posts are more than 3; we should just wait he does it.

Where did that rule come from? Dave made the change here: http://drupal.org/node/453640/revisions/891870/view but without a link to any discussion as to why this would be the policy...

RE: "Where did that rule come from? Dave made the change..." - there have been a lot of conversations about the quality of content in Drupal Planet, and what belongs in Planet vs Talk. Sometimes these conversations are in the webmasters issue queue, sometimes via email, sometimes via the docs queue, sometimes via IRC.

The thing that pretty much never happens is someone goes off and makes a policy change on their own, without consulting anyone. If/when that happens, the change gets reverted (or a lot of people get pissed off).

Taking a step back, the "three posts" guideline seems pretty reasonable - it's a pretty simple check to make sure that the feed contains (and will contain) accurate, quality, relevant posts.

As I see it, the Planet needs to be be both inclusive and good - while communication around this can definitely be improved, the folks who have been working in this have put in a lot of time, thought, and caring to making this into a manageable system, and they have worked in collaboration with the community to create guidelines to create some consistency.

@bonobo, I'm sorry, but I have to say, I don't believe you here. Discussions in IRC and e-mail don't matter to me, and they shouldn't matter to anyone else... unless they end up on d.o. But, that's the great thing about being part of an Open Source community- I don't need to trust you (or anyone- yes, I have trust issues, and it has nothing to do with you), since our decisions are (mostly) made in the open I can read up (if there's an issue), debate if needed, and then 'trust' my lying eyes.

Take a look at this issue: #937878: Add cweagans.net to the Planet. At the moment we seem to have "Dave Reid" rules for the planet, which is extremely frustrating. This isn't some smoky back-room where we decide who is or is not worthy of inclusion, it is a vital communication tool of an Open Source community, and thus decisions about who NOT to let in absolutely have to be made in the open.

Marking back to 'Needs Review', please cite an actual issue discussing this rule if you're going to use it as an excuse to exclude a community member from the Drupal Planet. They might not have a ton of posts, or a ton of contributions, but they have some of both and should be welcomed with open arms.

"The Dave Reid rules" +1.

Alex, you've commented on a lot of requests suggesting they get included but, afaict, have not been in the queue to deal with the complaints that feeds are off-topic, overly commercial, misleading, low quality, etc. It's not surprising you come to the conclusions you do given your limited perspective on the issues. When people don't follow the handbook pages that explain what is needed for inclusion on the planet it indicates that they aren't willing to research and/or aren't aware of our community norms. If they can't figure that out, why should we expect them to follow the more subtle norms of "is this planet worthy?" when they are in the feed?

On this specific case: I agree that the articles are high quality and I agree that it should be included in the planet when it meets that requirement. And...there's another issue with the site that I've mailed corbacho about.

@Alex_UA - RE: "I'm sorry, but I have to say, I don't believe you here."

Seriously? You actually think I would take time out of my day to lie in the issue queue? I have better things to do, Trust me.

IRC, email, and the issue queue is the way this community works. There is no rule that every single decision needs to be documented in a way that Alex UA can look it up afterwards when he gets frustrated. That's silly.

After reading through these various threads, this feels more like something personal against Dave Reid. This is not productive, and has no place in the issue queue, IRC, email, or anywhere else. If you can't see fit to trust the good intentions of the people who volunteer their time to help run d.o, that's a different issue entirely that has nothing to do with who does or doesn't get added to the planet.

We all can, should, and will disagree. The second we lose a basic sense of trust, our ability to work through any disagreements is gone.

I don't follow Dave Reid's rules. Sorry. Moved this to #967694: What are the rules for Planet Drupal? to stop pulling this thread off-topic. @bonobo- I just saw your response and will answer in that other thread...

Corbacho responded to my mail confirming that his site is configured properly. So, I think this is just waiting on another high quality post.

To reply to "Where does this rule come from?", I will say that it is reported in http://drupal.org/about/drupal-planet; as per who added that rule, it was not Dave Reid to add it (see http://drupal.org/node/453640/revisions/view/1158438/1176820), but it has been added by laura s, who added it basing on the discussion we had on http://drupal.org/node/928092.
None of the rules about Drupal Planet is the result of the decisions made from a single user, but they are the result of decisions taken from more than one site maintainer.

Feed seems to be removed.