On 26/11/2020 16:47, Lassi Kortela wrote:
>> I agree.  Scheme.org subdomains are precious
[...]
> They're not _that_ precious:
[...]

It might be an interesting project for an economist to find a way to
quantify the preciousness of a Scheme.org subdomain (given they're not
up for auction), but I think we can all agree there needs to be *some*
bar set as to what gets given a domain and what doesn't, and we probably
won't be able to agree on a written definition of where that bar is :-)

From my perspective, I think the biggest "value" at stake is real estate
on the front page of scheme.org; if a subdomain points at a dead
project, nobody will know unless they go looking under the covers, but a
link to a dead project on the front page is poor.

Based purely on gut feel, I suggest that scheme.org subdomains be given to:

1) Any existing thing that meets the basic standards wrt. privacy and
relevance to Scheme and so on, and is showing some community traction.

2) Any new thing that there's pretty broad consensus on the need for.

Any proposed new thing that *doesn't* get broad consensus so is rejected
by (2) isn't murdered by the tyranny of the vocal majority crushing
innovation - it just needs to start on a non-scheme.org domain and prove
its worth and thus become eligible under (1).

Anything that dies can be removed from the list (and hence from the
front page), but there should probably be some grace period between
removal from the front page and removal from DNS, to allow for any
remaining users to migrate away, while not pointing any new visitors at it.

Converting those hand-wavy definitions of "some community traction" and
"dies" and "pretty broad consensus" is left as an exercise for the reader.

--
Alaric Snell-Pym   (M0KTN neé M7KIT)
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/