Modification to marketplace T&C

This has been discussed before and is generally not well liked.

Can you give some insight into why you like this idea?

IIRC a problem was that our payment method (paypal) wouldn't work in all countries. My recollection may be incorrect.

No payment method will be perfect, getting listed for contributions without a membership is always an option.

My general thinking is:
- Regardless of policy, we should strive to make these pages highlight contributions, automated when possible. We won't be able to query for all types of contribution, but we can do a lot. We can even do things like sort by contributions, being careful to not create a junk-encouraging leaderboard. (See caveats at http://designingsocialinterfaces.com/patterns/Leaderboard)
- Association membership can help improve quality, usually people willing to put money in are more serious.
- If there are many more requests, and contributions are highlighted, manual review is much less necessary.

Related (possibly duplicate) issues:
#481428: clarify the "Drupal services" company addition policy and split it out
#317519: Apoint 2-3 maintainers for the Drupal services list

And IMO, @jredding's changes look great, and they help to ease the concerns over forcing small/foreign companies from incurring an expense (if it's an issue for them).

+1 on the changes.

I'm open to trying this out, especially with the provision that people can skip payment if they want.

In short, I've seen a direct correlation to companies with organization membership and their participating in our community than those without.

When it comes to requests to be included on the Drupal Services page, I've seen the opposite. People who mention their membership tend not to qualify on other measures.

Tagging & implementing this for the preview. (If it doesn't work, we change it.)

I did some superficial cleanups and posted this at http://drupal.org/node/1108710, so I have a URL to use in code.

Quick note that #320748: Capgemini is an example of someone not understanding the current T&C and assuming DA membership is a sufficient condition for inclusion.

Some suggestions for minor things that can aid clarity

• Prefix each element for elegibility with a summary of the requirement: e.g. Code, Themes, Documentation and forum support, Advocacy and outreach, QA and testing.
• Does "Advocacy and outreach" include organizing Drupal-related events? i think it should, and we should clarify that
• "write up these experiences in the Drupal Showcase forum" ... link to it?
• "for a brief time" .. what is considered brief? 3 months?
• "can't see your contributions through your tracker" let's explain what that means: "can't see your contributions on the Posts tab on your profile page"
• "can not" should be cannot

The other thing we don't state is ..what happens after they have their membership and create a listing? Does it go through some sort of approval process? Should we establish the hows and the whens? Might be good to set expectations that their listing won't appear immediately.

As implemented in code it is published by default, but on presave:
- If published, and you do not have 'administer nodes' or are the node owner (can't admin your own)
- If the node is already published, keep it published
- If you don't have an organization membership, unpublish it.

In short, either you are automatically published with an organization membership, or ask the webmasters issue queue to publish you.

Please do go ahead and create your organization if you are watching these issues, I don't want to be the only one.

I did a revision based on lisa's suggestions, diff is at http://drupal.org/node/1108710/revisions/view/1420622/1422158.

Since they'll get a URL path of 'node/!@#!@$^&' by default, what's the plan for giving them a path? If there was a someone responsible for maintaining these listings, they could just fix the URL when new listings are added. Is that you, Neil?

Regardless, we should probably set the expectation up front that it isn't automatic, maybe in the node/add/organization instructions. If anything, add a "Step 3: File an issue in the Webmasters issue queue if you see any problems with your listing."

I filed #1117436: Deploy pathauto & token for organization nodes? for the URLs. I don't think webmasters should have to worry about those.

To clarify: is the suggestion here that people no longer have to have their listings approved via a d.o. issue? I really hope that's not, as there are already a bunch of firms listed that really shouldn't be, and would never have been listed under the old rules *even with the new additions to the policy*.

Can someone clarify where the approval process is taking place? This vetting process should still happen, and it really needs to stay in the open, so I hope that we retain the controls over addition to the Marketplace that we had (imperfect as they were) before.

http://drupal.org/node/1108710 is linked from the Marketplace sidebar.

Some examples of companies that have not been approved via a d.o. webmaster issue, and whom I would -1 if they applied (at least at the moment):
#1128584: dpdk in the new Marketplace
#1128574: DesignHammer in the new d.o. Marketplace
#1128562: data in transit on the marketplace

@lauras- I see that, but why were the parts about moderation removed from http://drupal.org/node/1000788 ?

I'm hoping this is just a mistake- nothing in @jredding's original post indicated that the moderation elements were being removed from the new terms, and I would not have given a +1 if it was clear that we were opening up the marketplace to non-publicly-moderated approvals.

For the record, what @jredding originally proposed included the following (which is not reflected in the current T&C, and which is not being followed by whomever published the nodes I listed):

I propose that we modify our terms and conditions to maintain our current contribution requirements and add the requirement of an organization membership with the Drupal Association. Free membership can granted to any organization that requests them. However, all organizations must first and foremost meet the contribution requirement in order to be listed. No company can simply purchase a membership and be listed without becoming a part of our community. However, the requirement will help to be a barrier of participation such that the webmaster's queue is not overwhelmed with requests.
Contribution is gold.

Another good example of a company that should not be listed (yet) is ProPeople. They have an open request to get added to the marketplace, which hasn't gotten much attention ( #911178: Add Propeople in Drupal services listing ), they opened up a duplicate issue to attempt to get listed, and now they are: http://drupal.org/node/1121378 .

Who is approving these folks? Why isn't there even a basic search through the issue queue happening here?

It looks like nodes are Published by default right now. I am assuming this is temporary during the 'preview' phase (which is also a QA phase)....

Maybe so-- but it should probably be the other way around for the preview. For one, this makes it a complete waste of time for anyone to spend on the services listings issues (since they can be bypassed so easily by posting directly to the marketplace). Also, it will make it necessary to review and cull all the marketplace listings to remove those who undeservedly listed themselves without being vetted first.

Such listings on drupal.org have an innate desirability as well as an insane amount of google juice-- non-contributors are always trying to game their way into a free listing. This is only going to encourage that behavior and waste a lot of site maintainer time. :-(

Oh great we now make our contributors beg! What a great way to reward them. Did anyone read http://drupal.org/node/994350#comment-3823852 #3 and #4 and #15?

@Alex UA #22 as far as I understood there's been some misunderstanding.

http://drupal.org/node/911178#comment-4382356

I've contacted Paul Suway to make him aware of this issue.

I agree with removing the marketplace from the webmaster's queue, but there's no way that anyone has agreed to your changes in #2, specifically you've bypassed community moderation completely (otherwise, please post the issues where the moderation occurred). I want more good firms listed, but opening the floodgates is simply insulting to those of us who actually contribute to the community.

So, let's start a new queue, and those who don't mind having their time wasted can join, and that group can moderate. But let's not open a back door with little supervision for inclusion in a very important resource.

I elected to ...

Just a question here: since when things are decided without a community process on drupal.org?

Where is the consensus that we were going to remove moderation (or even a couple of people agreeing with you)? Just saying "well, they have to follow some vague guidelines" and then putting the responsibility for proving that they are not contributing enough to the webmasters has not been agreed to, and the unapproved companies should be removed until there is some public moderation of their contributions.

I understand the desire to break the logjam on approving companies for listing on d.o., I am completely bewildered by the tactics being used to attain this goal.

@jredding- I understand there are no style points for getting stuff done sometimes, but in this case it has the appearance of two paid employees of the Drupal Association using the fact that they receive a paycheck to bypass normal community guidelines, and so it *appears* unseemly. Which is to say, the tactics you're employing are almost guaranteed to blow up in your face and cause a strategic failure, which is what you're concerned with (and so am I). But moving on...

I don't have a single proposed solution to the issue, since there are really three related issues. First up, where should the moderation take place:
1- Create a new issue queue to deal with applications for the Marketplace. I think that we should consider whether other content approval processes should reside in the same issue queue-I'd love to see us develop a "Communications Team" that could deal with all top-level content on d.o., as well as the marketplace, planet, and even press releases.
2- We announce that content moderation is being moved to this new issue queue, so that those who care about and have volunteered to help build/maintain these sections have a chance to join.
3- After a bit of time (a week?), we move all of the currently open tickets for inclusion in the marketplace to the new group. We should alert the folks who have already begun the process that there's a change in terms and a new content type, and ask them to create a new node.
4- We should alert all of the people who have already been approved via the issue queue about the new terms (assuming any of them do not have a DA membership), and ask them to create a new node (again, if they haven't already)

Issue #2 is about moderation of these companies, which is the much more important/contentious issue. But, I propose the following:
1- Allow any company with a DA membership to post a node. These could go on a subpage and should not be featured on the main marketplace page, but will be visible and searchable for the general public. I would argue that the new nodes make the job of Peer Review a lot easier- because we can easily see who each company's contributing members are.
2- For the main page these companies should all have passed through a moderation process where we ensure that they are in fact contributing companies. Reason #1 for this: we are a Peer Review community (it is one of our greatest strengths), and these organizations need to prove they understand the concept, so there's no way we should remove the peer review requirement. Reason #2 for this: there are very few ways to reward companies that "pay for the plumbing", and this is one of them. While we certainly need to grow the ecosystem, we can't do so at the expense of growing the numbers of companies that are helping to maintain the project and this site.
3- Once a company is moderated and approved by 2-3 members of the new issue queue, it is viewable from the main page (which should be limited to contributing companies). There should also be some sort of visual indication that this change has happened- one possibility would be to only show the company logos of contributing companies, but that's just an initial idea.

Issue #3 is what the criteria for deciding who a "contributing company" are, and for this I have a few ideas:
1- The big thing that I think we need to look for is whether the company has tied their internal development processes in with the drupal.org code review/patching/issue queue processes. So, from this perspective I would say that patches are equally as important as contributed modules and themes. The idea here is that prospective clients of these companies could review the trackers
2- Where is the company? I personally think we need to focus a bit of attention on growing the ecosystem in places where there are no developers. This is, of course, a bit self serving (since I own a company that's already listed), but I think the first firms that show up in places like Jordan, Sri Lanka, and other countries (as well as cities/regions) where there's not currently an established ecosystem deserve a bit of a "leg up".
3- How long has the company, or their employees, been contributing to the community? This is just to establish a pattern of behavior.
4- How else has the company helped to grow the community and/or pay for the plumbing? These should count A LOT less than #s 1-3, but could include things like: hosting MeetUps, speaking at Drupal events, evangelizing Drupal in other communities, sponsoring Camps/Cons, running g.d.o. groups, etc.

I think that it will be unfair to say that coding contribution has a much higher bearing than documentation or writing. I am not sure if this is what is implied when you say the number 1 factor is that the company contributes patches and modules/themes.

If everyone just contribute code and dont write things such as tutorials, manuals and case studies; I am not sure how Drupal will appeal to non-technical business users who are a lot of times the people who pay the bills.

In the same way if people just contribute code and dont run events, I am not sure how strong the community will be.

My 2 cents :)

Arnold

I am +1 to moving non-docs, non-technical, non-project content (e.g. Marketplace entry review/approval) to a dedicated "Communication" Project. I can go into why in a separate issue. :)

We use the core 'new' and 'updated' for marketplace entries? Easily done with Views. I'm sure it's no problem to build a View and put it in the drupalorg module that shows the most recently added marketplace nodes. ONce a marketplace node is published, we'll want to keep an eye on them to ensure nothing unusual goes into their note post-approval.

@Arnold Leung- I should have put documentation in there as well, I do think it's very important. (There are other ways that I also left off) The main thing that I would want to see is the way in which creating/editing documentation integrated with the ways that they work. I also think there's a bit less peer review in documentation, so I believe that should be taken into account.

I just want to say, having just gone through the process of getting into the Marketplace: Yuck.

Why yuck?

I think I qualify as a fairly major contributor of time/effort to the Drupal community and project, and I don't think I have to explain that... Besides the considerable time I donate to the project, I also indirectly contribute financially to the Drupal community and project, by paying my own way to the North American DrupalCon each year (which isn't cheap for a freelancer, when you add in the airfare, hotel, etc.), and by sponsoring and paying my way to local events.

So I resented the fact that this new Marketplace, which says it is recognizing contributions to the community, seemed (after going through the process) to really only recognize that I had made a $100 or so contribution to the Drupal Association by becoming an organization-level member. [As far as I can tell, as soon as I clicked the paypal "pay" button, I was able to create a published marketplace node -- and yes, I can see that this is still being discussed on this issue. And I also do realize that I could have applied to get a free listing, but as I had been thinking for some time that I really should join the DA (though probably as an individual), I went ahead and did that... But I just want to let whoever made the decision to change Services into Marketplace in this way how bad of a taste it left for me.]

And no, I'm not willing to be on the committee of people who vet applications to be in the Marketplace, so I don't have a solution to this problem.... Who among the regular contributors to Drupal would have time to add yet another responsibility to their load, which seems to do so little for the community (as opposed to spending their time fixing servers, fixing bugs, designing themes, writing doc, etc. that people can actually use)?

As others in this thread have indicated, having a node go public automatically - without any community review - solely on the basis of an org buying a membership, creates the appearance that you can buy a listing in the services directory.

I would be in favor of a system that:

1. Had all "Marketplace" nodes originally in an unpublished state.
2. Auto-created an issue in the appropriate (tbd) queue
3. Subscribed the "Marketplace" node author to the issue
4. Then, the list unpublished marketplace nodes would appear in a single spot, with a link to the attached issue
5. Some kind of email notification to the node author with a link to their marketplace node and the accompanying issue wouldn't be a bad thing either, but that's more of a nice to have.

With that in mind, I'd propose the following wording:

The following elements are weighed in determining eligibility for inclusion on Drupal marketplace:

1) Code contributions, in the form of modules, patches to modules, or patches submitted against core. In the case of companies with multiple developers, or of companies who have sponsored development, please include links to the projects your company has worked on. If your developers want to contribute directly, this page provides an overview.

2) Design firms with contributed themes.

• If your contributions include helping in the forums or writing documentation, highlight the areas where you have contributed.
• If you have contributed by doing Drupal advocacy and outreach, write up these experiences in the Drupal Showcase forum on Drupal.org.
• If you have contributed by testing patches, fixing bugs, running unit tests, etc, highlight the projects where this work has occurred.

The following aspects can weigh against your application:

• A brief membership on Drupal.org. If you have been a member of the site for a brief time, you should explain how your work has directly contributed to and benefited the Drupal community.
• A lack of documented contributions. The Drupal community is big, and growing bigger. If people can't see your contributions through your tracker or know you by reputation from your work within the development or documentation lists, you will need to specify how you have contributed.

To be listed in the service directory:

1) Create your organization's listing and note your contributions to the Drupal project (link). Your organization's page will be reviewed by a member of the Webmaster team. The review process will take place in the issue queue.

2) We strongly recommend that organizations seeking to be listed in the marketplace purchase an Association Membership (link). While this is not a requirement, Association memberships help companies that benefit from a listing on drupal.org underwrite a portion of the cost of maintaining drupal.org

Hi,

I think we still havent solve the current problem of not having enough people reviewing the applications.

We also still dont have a process that says what "approving an application" means. Is it 1 person, or is it 2? What happens when you get 2 +1, but then a third person says -1?

Putting the requirements on paper is easy, but having an efficient approval process is not.

Frankly, this issue of what approval means is not limited to profiles under the Drupal service list.

(take a look at what I went through just trying to get a link to my case study on www.drupal.org/cases until I gave up at the end because its taking months and months to get approval)

Without an efficient process in place, the community cannot grow, everything will take too long to get done. The key to a successful approval process is to have a small group of people own and be accountable for the approval tasks. Having the idea of everyone own the task just dont work. If people in that group cannot approve/review applications in a reasonable amount of time, then they need to be replaced by others.

Arnold

To improve the moderation process, I filed two issues:

#1217292: Use a field for marketplace listing instead of published allows published organization nodes to be unlisted. This allows other uses of organization nodes throughout he site, like #1134916: On profile pages, show organization logo & association membership and #1199190: Request to update d.o/hosting without the sometimes-cumbersome moderation process.

#1217308: Improve moderation for listed organizations to improve the moderation experience for both sides.

Those issues are about the code changes to support this section. I kept them separate from this policy discussion since they are implementable and deployable code changes. The code should certainly help everyone work with the policy, but it is just code.

#1217292: Use a field for marketplace listing instead of published is now deployed, so moderators have more options. On the form, there is: List in marketplace:
- Do not list
- List if the organization has a current membership, updated on saving this page (default)
- Always list, regardless of membership

I grandfathered in the following organizations without findable organization memberships, but were published:
Agileware
Aten Design Group
basicmagic.net
Bluespark Labs
Buzzr
Chapter Three
CivicActions (NGOs & Social Advocacy)
Commerce Guys
Drupaltherapy
Duo Consulting
Dutch Open Projects
Evolving Web
FleetThought
Fredrik Jonsson (xdeb.net)
FunnyMonkey
iO1 Limited
Ixis IT
Koumbit.org
LevelTen Interactive
Linnovate
Lullabot
NodeOne
Phase2 Technology
Redfin Solutions, LLC
SthlmConnection
ThinkShout
Treehouse Agency
unleashed mind
vkareh.net, LLC

They might have a membership on a different account, but it is their responsibility to find it. http://association.drupal.org/contact can help out.

If any of these don't have a great contribution record, please file a webmasters issue, and let the organization owner know. I think a second comment on the issue agreeing should be needed to take action, unless they are obviously in the wrong place. However, I'll leave it up to the moderators to set up and document clear rules. I would also like to see some clear guidelines on what exactly is "enough" contribution, and put into http://drupal.org/node/1108710. Saying you haven't contributed enough without clearly defining enough is unfair. Contributions do come in many forms, so some room for judgement is okay.

drumm: I do have elevated d.o privileges, but I noticed when I went to edit my Marketplace listing that I could change the value of that new field. Some permissions might need to be adjusted?

I updated the logic for editing your own organization and made a note about it at #1217292: Use a field for marketplace listing instead of published. I just deployed this.

#1217308: Improve moderation for listed organizations needs help from service provider reviewers. What would you like to see in automatically-filed issues for new organizations.

One thing that seems to be lacking is automatic conversion of existing "marketplace" listings into the new version. The company I work for, Cocomore AG, has been listed since last year (or so), before the new form with countries, sectors, services, etc.

It would be nice if we could just add the new configurations, but it seems there is no connection. What are the steps to convert our existing marketplace listing into one which includes the new fields. At present we don't show up in the list of Drupal service providers in Germany, even though there are companies in the "Germany" list who I've never heard of, who I doubt have EVER done a project in Germany, and who are based on the other side of the globe. There really needs to be some oversight of this since this kind of spamming of the country list and sectors/services doesn't help make the marketplace system very useful.

Can anyone tell me what the recommended procedure should be for converting existing (old format) marketplace listings into ones associated with the new fields?

@LoMo - The way I see it the Organization list and the /drupal-services list serve 2 different purposes.

/drupal-services is a way to highlight companies (or people who freelance) that have gone above-and-beyond is supporting Drupal - either by code, participation in Conventions/camps, or other ways. Getting listed here should be a bit difficult.

/marketplace-preview is the general list of companies that provide Drupal-related services. It obviously doesn't take a lot to get listed here.

So as they serve two different purposes, and are functionally distinct, I don't see the advantage of converting. Just create a new Organization node and go from there.

(And, yes, the /marketplace-preview does need a lot of work/monitoring/etc.)

#1217308: Improve moderation for listed organizations was deployed:
- Organizations can opt-out of being listed in the marketplace and still get any other features, removing the whole moderation kerfuffle if they don't want it.
- Organizations get a webmasters issue filed for them. Making the page first is good because it removes confusion about having to draft a page. And it sets them up to communicate with webmasters. There is an admin-only node reference field on the organization node to refer to the issue, in case it changes.

As a reminder- there is an admin setting for marketplace listing:
- Always be listed, they follow the guidelines being figured out in this issue
- Be listed with Association membership, the default, we at least know they are paying that to start
- Never be listed, they do not follow the guidelines here

... and of course unpublish any spam or completely random companies.

To provide an extra reward, I'd like to suggest using #371972: How will featured listings on the marketplace work?. We do want to replace http://drupal.org/drupal-services with the marketplace listings and do want to have the community and Association working together to make the section great.

What we need to clear up is having a clear standard for being listed, and clear standards for anything like featured listings. We do want to encourage contributions, but need to know where to draw the line.

Thanks for the clarifications, silverwing and drumm.

I have some suggestions:
1) Perhaps individuals and companies who qualified for the original marketplace could be considered "featured" (as a starting point)
2) There are probably others who haven't noticed this change and are significant contributors, but don't yet have a "new system" listing; therefore I suggest we maybe send a message to those who haven't yet created one.
3) Perhaps adding address fields for "office location(s)" and/or "languages spoken" could better help qualify which organizations should be considered "active" in a particular region.

I think this system needs work, but is a step in the right direction. Thanks and kudos to you, drumm, and the team who've helped implement these changes. :-)

If the two listings are merged (less confusing to end-users), the two sets of criteria could be distilled into flags, so that each listing can have a DA Org badge and/or a Community Contributor badge, as appropriate. These could in theory be used for exposed filtering and sorting.

As drumm said:

We do want to replace http://drupal.org/drupal-services with the marketplace listings

Since he's the main Drupal webmaster, I think we can assume that these listings will be "merged" (the original fully replaced by the new). :-)

(And by way of follow-up, I'm still waiting for others in my organization to help determine which countries / services / sectors are most appropriate for us to identify as covering. With over 100 people involved in our projects, we do cover a lot of services and sectors, even a lot of non-Drupal projects, but I think we should only "claim" our biggest strengths rather than everything we've done for clients.

BTW, I love that the site is now using the BUEditor for comment and content editing. I was planning to move our site from CKEditor to BUEditor since the "WYSIWYG"s can be such a pain. But the complete lack of any editor here really made this site seem pretty feature-less. This is awesome!

This sounds great to me. I love the idea of inclusive listings + flags to feature companies that go above and beyond.

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. One thing though-- since we're going to be more inclusive, I think we need a disclaimer somewhere that being listed doesn't imply any kind of level of expertise or endorsement by d.o or the association.

I've seen some pretty shady 'expert drupal companies' request being listed and I would hate for a bad experience with those companies to reflect on the community.

As I've stated in the past I'd really like a heavier emphasis put on contributing patches, since that lowers the total amount of work required to get listed, while ensuring that the company is following best practices for development. I'd also like to see patching and documentation updates separated, since those are very different tasks, and there absolutely needs to be something along the lines of UX + Design.

Overall though, I think this is a good move. +1

+1 on the 6 items listed out by jredding in 52.

-1 on the sequencing/order of priority. All of these items are valuable, and they should be weighed together as part of a complete picture of how a shop contributes.

Some people have been working to update http://drupal.org/contribute and http://drupal.org/new-contributors, which might help.

This might be a crazy idea, but could we calculate a per-month, per-capita contribution rate (since we know how many people on d.o work for a company based on the organization field) and sort the company list by that? This would prevent the bigger fish (Acquia, Phase 2, etc.) from always being at the top, and would encourage companies to consistently dedicate time to give back, as opposed to making it a one-time thing for initial approval.

@webchick- as I understand it we're not talking about ordering the posts via anything other than random on the front page and alphabetical on further pages. The only reason Acquia would show up very high is, well, they're smarter then I am when naming a business (not as smart as if they'd named it Aaaquia, but still).

I disagree with what @bonobo said, all contributions may be created equal, but some are definitely more equal than others. I personally would like to see those items that display the firm's commitment to Peer Review, but ultimately we're not talking about firm metrics here, are we? Ultimately, if a firm is contributing is a couple of ways over a relatively good amount of time then I'd like to see them listed, no matter what those contributions were.

@WorldFallz- from where I sit this is not really about loosening the requirements to be listed as a "Contributing Company" (though new types of contribution are being encouraged), but rather it's about clearing the log-jam that's preventing contributing companies from getting listed, and it gives a way for people to list their companies before they receive the contributing designation.

@jredding - your list in #52 provides a good rubric - what alex_ua says about patches should also be included, as there are times when patching existing code is a "better" solution that maintaining a new contrib module.

And yes, the more time a company puts in to working within the community, the better. That is a different issue than *how* that time is spent. Until we get good numbers on ROI (if that's even possible), it's difficult to say that 20 hours spent working on a contrib module is a "better" contribution than 20 hours spent organizing a DrupalCamp.

@alex_ua - strongly agree with "if a firm is contributing is a couple of ways over a relatively good amount of time then I'd like to see them listed" - this is what I was getting at in my comment in #58, when I said that the sequencing/ordering of priority didn't make sense - to clarify, we are looking to see a regular pattern of contributions in a variety of ways, over time. Prioritizing types of contributions could contribute to certain types of contributions being perceived as of lesser value.

@webchick in 61, re "could we calculate a per-month, per-capita contribution rate" - there are a lot of meaningful contributions that fall outside what is easily measurable. For example, if a company or an individual is active in organizing/supporting their local meetup, that contribution woiuld be difficult to measure.

We are working on the next part of marketplace improvements right now and I just opened an issue about updated guidelines for each section of the Marketplace : #1671102: Create Marketplace guidelines. Guidelines are open for comments and improvements, let's try to agree on something by the end of next week!

#1671102: Create Marketplace guidelines is marked fixed and we have new guidelines for the Marketplace. So I think this issue can be closed as well.