http://drupal.org/project/arrow

What is going on here? Is it spam?

Comments

heine’s picture

heine commented

Not spam.

It appears to be a joke project (at least for now) referencing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7labtk6jr5g

fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented

Yes, this is a joke project. Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDfxde8fSg (Turn down your volume before watching it). If you have a problem with this kind of project then you might want to checkout these too:

http://drupal.org/project/bacon
http://drupal.org/project/khaaaaaaan
http://drupal.org/project/bad_judgement
http://drupal.org/project/whosyourdaddy
http://drupal.org/project/kitten
http://drupal.org/project/zombiekiller
http://drupal.org/project/futurama

I could go on... but you get the idea... These kind of modules are for amusement and I think they are fun. They don't harm anyone. If someone ever wants to use the namespace for an actual real module noone is going to stop him / her from taking it over. Even a serious community needs the occasional fun moments. If you want to argue about "arrow", please also argue about all the other non-purpose and "bad judgement" modules out there.

I was actually threatened by someone on IRC saying that "People who want to keep their d.o accounts don't 'publish' modules like that". Really?!

These modules have been out there for quite some time... I know that we had a lot of fun talking about crazy ideas for bad judgement modules during Drupal City Berlin and DrupalCon London. There is even a twitter account just for these kind of modules. Do you really want to shut this down? It seems to bring a lot of amusement to a lot of people in this community.

Anyways, I do admit that these modules might be irritating and annoying to some people out there who don't share the same sense of humor... However, if you feel that this needs to be fixed and that we have to get rid of this kind of stuff on d.o then I would kindly ask you to talk about the bigger picture (which involves many of the top Drupal contributors as you can see) instead of just exposing and threatening a freshman like me on d.o and IRC. Thank you.

sun’s picture

sun
Primary language German
Location Karlsruhe
commented
Title: Is this for real? » Arrow, Bad Judgement, and other modules are confusing

@fubhy sounds a bit overly defensive in #2, but that seems to caused by the fact that he was kinda cherry-picked out and attacked in IRC for creating that particular project, so emotions are just natural. Overall, however, I think he nails the larger issue.

Re-titling this issue to make a bit more sense out of it.

That said, I've no idea. I'm not a big fan of these joke projects, especially because they're promoted to full projects. But I also see and understand that they're here to foster a fun environment.

silverwing’s picture

silverwing commented

Like sun, I'm also not a fan of these modules. But I don't think people see them and decide they're not going to use Drupal because of Khaaaaaan.

It's just not a big deal. And that's why we created the Novelty category.

(And imagine all those people who stopped using WordPress because of their "Talk like a pirate" plugin."

silverwing’s picture

silverwing commented

and for those interested:
#946928: Create a 'Novelty' module category
#1325160: Discuss where to draw the line regarding content hosted on d.o

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

#2 too defensive by half! This is the first time I have been searching for a module and found myself looking at a joke, so I had no axe to grind and this "module" wasn't singled out whilst tolerating other similar "modules", nor do I have the kind of mind that keeps track of who is a newbie or who should be victimised or whatever. From a usability point of view it is annoying, very annoying to have one's time wasted when there is real work to be done. Fact is this isn't a module and shouldn't be listed in the modules. If it is true as #2 tells us that lots more rubbish is out there, then it all should be taken down. What is left should be anything that actually is a module. BTW, if "talk like a pirate" really does talk like a pirate, then it is a valid module in the humour category. But a fake module that doesn't even have a joke worth reading definitely doesn't qualify. It's garbage cluttering up people's time when they have important work to do. This is nothing to do with whether I (or any other critic) "has a sense of humour"; it is to do with whether people's time will forceably be wasted navigating around nonsense when they are trying to do serious work finding modules, perhaps running hard against time deadlines. Just ask yourself #2, what if everyone did that? How useful would Drupal be then? If you reply, "but everyone isn't, I am special" then you tell us all we need to know.

And another thing: authors of serious modules keep on catching grief from the uptight "duplication!!" police. It is an insult to their hard work to allow this garbage while they are criticised for their hard work because someone thinks they should have collaborated more, or joined another project, or some such nonsense. If that kind of criticism of serious authors is allowed to happen (and it does!) then there should be no question about removing un-funny, useless trash like "I used to be a module". If that means there is no place for this stuff, then make one: Make another category where we know we will find the trivial and pointless, but hopefully "fun" stuff, so it doesn't pollute the real game.

fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented
Status: Closed (duplicate) » Active
fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

Can you please try to be less offending and aggressive towards me #6? I am not judging you for your sense of humor, so please don't judge me for mine.

Let's proceed with this discussion in #1325160: Discuss where to draw the line regarding content hosted on d.o.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

Reopening this issue, as I don't think this is a duplicate of #1325160: Discuss where to draw the line regarding content hosted on d.o.

(That issue asks the question of how to deal with offending/politicized content on drupal.org, while this issue to me seems focused on whether some modules/projects should be removed since they are confusing or misleading.)

Here are my two cents:

First
The community's code of conduct says that we should try to be considerate towards each other. This concerns both when creating modules and when discussing modules. It is probably impossible to be thoughtful and considerate all the time, but striving towards it is a good thing.

We are all human beings, even if that is easy to forget when communicating through a screen.

Second
The actual issue discussed here is whether joke modules should be allowed or not. As far as I can tell, the reasons for doing this are:

  1. When evaluating different modules to solve a problem, it takes time and causes frustration when you realize that you stumbled on a joke module.
  2. Some joke modules are not really modules, since they don't contain any code.
  3. It is disrespectful to people waiting to get access to create "full projects".
  4. It is disrespectful to people being told that their modules duplicate other module functionality.

My opinion about this is:

  1. The real problem when looking for good modules is "real" modules that do things in slightly different ways. Joke modules are pretty easy to discard (though they may be confusing).
  2. It might make sense to remove Drupal modules/projects that haven't gotten any code uploaded 48 hours (or so) after being created. (I know that "empty" projects were removed in the Git migration, for example.) However, I don't see empty modules causing any problems – but I'd be happy to see a discussion about it.
  3. I agree that it might be percieved as disrespectful that your own efforts in creating a "real" module is ignored, while joke projects are promoted to full status (and non-duplicates). This is a problem that needs attention, but the real problem is the long waiting line for full project status, not the joke modules.

If we should discuss joke modules, let's do that. Let's not call each other's efforts garbage.

(PS: The "novelty" category is used for joke modules, as I just found out in #946928: Create a 'Novelty' module category – kindly linked to by silverwing.)

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

The fact is, #8, I really and honestly thought this was simply spam that I was reporting to the site moderators. Frankly I'm shocked it was put up by a serious participant in the drupal effort. As I said, it has nothing to do with senses of humour. It is simply a waste of time and space interrupting people trying to do real work. And that would still be true if the "joke" were funny.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented
Status: Closed (duplicate) » Active

Edit: duplicate. Sorry.

fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

If it doesn't meet your sense of humor that doesn't mean that noone else is going to find it funny. It is an inside joke that has been used by Skyrim (The Elder Scrolls) players recently. If you don't like it thats your opinion but please just try to be a little more open-minded.

Anyways... this is not the point of this discussion. So what if we just let it go now and focus on the true matter? Obviously there are people like you out there who feel offended by this kind of content on d.o so we need to find a solution.

dave reid’s picture

dave reid
he/him
Primary language English
Location Nebraska USA
commented

I will say if you're going to have a joke module, you'd better have code to back it up. :)

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented
Status: Closed (duplicate) » Active

By help of JohnAlbin, I managed to locate this presentation on the "joke module" topic:

http://chicago2011.drupal.org/sessions/bad-judgement-eldorado-superfly-k...

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

#9, thank you for that good summary. I took over a useful and well-conceived module whose original author gave it up as duplicated work, I suspect as a result of continued hounding by the "duplication" police - despite the fact that his module did things no others did, and so I took it over to save his valuable work. Why did he have to be exposed to that criticism if anything at all goes? I ask one thing of drupal.org: be consistent. If the standard for contributed modules is "any rubbish" then send the duplication police packing and let's never hear from them again. Or if we have standards and module writers get grilled about the value of their modules, then don't permit rubbish like "used to be a module". If there are joke modules that actually contain workable code (talk like a pirate?), then as long as they are safe and not damagingly irresponsible, put them in a special humour category, or better yet, in a subdomain for less serious stuff, so standard searches don't keep running into them. Don't forget the newcomers who are often even frightened to install the bare core. Drupal.org should be a reliable and safe place.

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

I agree with Dave Reid: No code, no hosting (except special circumstances).

I have checked all the projects linked to in #2 and all of them besides the "bacon" theme have code. So "arrow" isn't really comparable to either of them. It is just a joke. So I suggest that it be removed.

fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented

I don't have a problem with that.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

rhouse: You're welcome! But please don't call other efforts "rubbish".

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

#18, again I thank you for your calming influence on the discussion, but please note I didn't call any efforts rubbish. In fact I praised efforts. I called a non-effort rubbish. It has no code. There's a million places to tell a joke. This (shouldn't be) one of them.

But since you've got me started (again), the actions of the duplication police (are they self appointed or elected or what?) have the effect of rubbishing some really worthwhile things that took real hard work to create. I find that far more offensive than calling a spade a spade. Removing "I used to be a module" is treating the symptom. Will this result in any improvement in policy - either putting fun stuff on its own subsite or category, or alternatively telling the duplication police that from now on there's no problem with having two similar modules? In fact come to think of it, the former is a good idea regardless of the latter, and the latter is maybe only a bit foo far than desirable.

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

I don't care for joke modules, either, but I want to comment that joke modules are not harmful in the way duplicated modules are. With module duplication, there is often a great deal of overlap which leaves users confused about which to choose. In addition, because so many modules need to integrate with other modules, you end up having to write integration code for multiple modules that do basically the same thing which puts more workload on other people. Sometimes duplication is unavoidable for various reasons and it's not forbidden but we do encourage people to work together whenever possible so we can focus on one good solution instead of several "nearly there" ones.

Michelle

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

Thank you Michelle for #20. I think that reasoning ignores the creative impetus. When people are giving work for free (almost everyone here) the choice often isn't between following one's star or contributing to someone else's, it is between following one's star or doing nothing. The big problem in getting a slice of cake isn't deciding how to cut it, it is getting it baked in the first place. And all-singing, all-dancing modules aren't necessarily better than small atomic ones. Example: Numerous data input modules have been discontinued because feeds supposedly does it all, and yet feeds has become huge and bloated and is way overkill for some common bulk import tasks - and contains bugs due to its complexity.

I don't necessarily grant your other points. You ignore the disparity in effort of someone contributing working code to solve a problem vs "contributing" a one line joke that clutters the module space. Next, the Packt book about writing D7 modules has some very good advice on how to write modules so they will interface without necessarily needing glue code. Also many modules do their job in relative isolation from the specifics of other modules. And I don't think joke modules are as harmless as you think. Many newcomers are genuinely uneasy about choosing drupal. They don't necessarily even know how to find the serious modules in a sea of nonsense (and please don't say there isn't a sea of it: leave the gates open and there soon will be).

All in all I think there is something really wrongheaded about arguing (as you do) that freely given honest hard work is more damaging than frivolous rubbish. The proposition is almost its own refutation. You want to discourage a lot of people and lose momentum for drupal, I think this is a good way to set about doing that.

[Edit] I'm going to strike that last remark because there is a truth you are saying that it doesn't properly address. Certainly a pristine module space with no duplication could be better, in a purely technical sense, than what we have now. But the idea that we can have such a thing is unrealistic. The duplication police are operating in a fantasy world in which effort saved from writing a similar module can be redirected into some other outlet, like choosing which bucket to fill with water. But human desires, wishes, strivings, are not a bulk quantity like water from a tap. Looking at this from a purely technical standpoint entirely misses what is perhaps the most important dimension.

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

There is no such thing as "duplication police" and that is a very inflammatory term to use. No one is forbidden from duplicating modules. Anyone can fork anything or make their own vision of anything at any time. We encourage people to work together because it is usually in the best interest of the community to collaborate rather than doing your own thing. That doesn't always work out for various reasons but that doesn't mean it isn't a good goal to strive for. I've been in the trenches trying to help users who are trying to make sense of a list of modules that all do essentially the same thing and isn't pretty. I've also been the one being asked to integrate my module with 3 different ones that do essentially the same thing and that's just annoying. Duplication causes lots of problems, often, but not always, more than it solves.

Joke modules do nothing but take up space and look silly. Maybe a moment of time if one clicks on one accidentally, but nothing compared to the pain of staring at 5 modules that all sound sort of like you want but one has feature X and the other has feature Y and another feature Z and you don't know which to pick because they won't work together so you have to choose just one and hope you got it right. So, yes, I do believe duplication is much more harmful than silly modules that have no real impact on what is often a difficult process of choosing modules.

Michelle

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

There is no such thing as "duplication police" and that is a very inflammatory term to use.

I agree completely.

Larger decisions in the Drupal community – such as banning joke modules or creating policies that forbids duplicate modules – are usually taken after a lot of discussion and reaching consensus. If someone wants to ban joke modules, the best way to achieve this is to make it clear why it should be so – but by making other people upset the discussion will go astray and there will be no consensus.

I think it is far better to stay focused on the actual issue, and when adding remarks about what is useful/useless, threatening/harmless for the community and so on – a "I think that" can't hurt.

That being said: I don't think think there is a risk Drupal module space being flooded by joke modules. Joke modules have been around for at least 2,5 years, and from the close to 10,000 Drupal modules available it is difficult to find more than 20 joke modules.

I also agree with Michelle that the real problem is choosing between real modules.

If there is a problem with joke modules, I think it is that people putting a lot of effort into "real" modules – and don't get them accepted as full projects – feel offended/dishearted.

When it comes to actually changing the community's unspoken policy about joke modules, I think it will be really difficult. There are a lot of big contributors that have taken the concept of joke modules to their heart, and I quite understand them. It will take good reasons – presented in a good way – to convince any of them.

I myself think that joke modules bring much more joy and benefit than harm – but I am willing to listen to good arguments.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

Just added this issue: #1428992: Rename "Novelty" category to "Joke modules"

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

Take a look at the slideshow comparison page http://drupal.org/node/418616 . There it is stated as a fact, based on a superficial and simplistic analysis of the jobs slideshow modules do, that there should be no more than two slideshow modules. And slideshow_creator, the module I now maintain, had become orphaned when its creator became convinced that his excellent work was nothing but duplicate and inferior - yet it did (and does) things no other slideshow module can. In addition over a thousand sites rely on it for hundreds of slideshows, which would involve exorbitant effort to recode to use another module - even if another module did what this one does, which they don't.

That is the kind of damage that this intellectual purity causes. In the abstract it sounds all well and good, but it ignores the human element and practical difficulties.

There should be no room in the main contributed module list for "modules" that contain no code, or modules that deliberately trash a site. Modules to actually do something, yes, by all means, even if it is "talk like a pirate" - but please label it a joke module or something similar, and make this fact more prominent in the module search pages than it currently is.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

rhouse: It seems very harsh to claim that slideshow_creator is duplicate and inferior work – if that was how the message was delivered, then I would say that the person delivering it should have a closer look at the Drupal code of conduct.

There should be no room in the main contributed module list for "modules" that contain no code

Please bear in mind that no one person can dictate what rules drupal.org or the community should follow. I understand that this is your opinion, but it is expressed more as a fact. You are a part of those deciding what will happen, but like me you are only a small part of the communty.

If you/me/we want to go ahead and suggest a ban against emtpy modules or joke modules, I think we should close this issue and start a new one. (This issue contains a lot of discussion outside this topic, and could be better summarized in a new issue.) What do you think about that?

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

Thanks Itangalo, I don't know what the original creator was told about his module specifically, but I know what the slideshow comparison page says and how the module creator expressed his reason for abandoning it: duplicative and not as good as other modules.

Your forward-looking suggestion sounds very good But I still have no axe to grind in this business. I started this thread to report what I honestly believed was a spam module that had been slipped in illegitimately. I thought I was doing a 5 minute job to warn the webmasters. But from the discussion here, I have been shocked to discover that far from spam, it was considered quite legitimate. The opinion was even expressed that it was less harmful than duplicative modules - which is a big issue with me in light of the excellent slideshow_creator and the circumstances that led to my taking it over. I don't want to suppress joke or humour modules, but I do think empty modules that exist just to state a joke are an abuse of the system, especially considering the hoops some have been made to go through to set up real modules with hundreds of hours work behind them.

Having stepped into the quicksand, though, I am happy to pursue it. My take is: no empty modules (except while preparing for a real module), and joke modules clearly marked as such. Since you will make the point in a much better way than I will, I would be grateful if you would start a new topic based on your view of the issue, and I will happily contribute to it.

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

If someone actually told him he couldn't have a duplicate module (within the last few years; the policy used to be different) then that was wrong. Duplicate modules are not forbidden, only discouraged. We like people to collaborate but recognize that isn't always possible. Keep in mind if you are only reading his reaction that people can overreact. A few years ago, in the midst of dealing with the duplication in the "buddy" space and dealing with confused users trying to decide between them and having to integrate with all of them, someone came along and announced to me that he had made yet another "buddy" module. When I sighed and said that's going to add to the confusion (never said he couldn't contribute it, just that it was going to make things even harder to decide in this space, now), he went on a several month rampage over it and ended up leaving the community. Unless you can see what was actually said to him, you have no way to know if he's overreacting to an offhand comment that collaborating would be better or if it's someone crossing the line and saying his module isn't welcome here.

As for joke modules, both Dave and Killes have said no code, no project. That tends to be the rule in general, aside from some special cases where the project is needed as a placeholder for something or to make use of the issue queue.

Renaming them to "joke modules" is probably fine but check what's all in that category, first, to be sure there's nothing that's actually a useful module.

Anyone upset that a joke module exists when they are waiting to get their project approved needs to keep in mind that the people writing the joke modules in most cases are people with other, serious, projects that contribute a lot to the community. I would be shocked if a joke module got approved as a first time project going through the application review. So there may be little to no work involved in the fun stuff but that doesn't mean that is all they are doing for the community.

Michelle

dman’s picture

dman commented

@Michelle - Though it's not quite set in stone that duplicate modules are never allowed, it counts heavily against the first-time contributor review process.

I gave thumbs down on this one for that reason. As always, there are judgement calls to be made. I would not doubt that "Yet another slideshow module" would need to make a very strong case for someone to use it as their only project application.

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

@dman: Back when it was just ajk and I doing reviews, we used to deny based on duplication. Then Dries basically said "let them compete" (I don't have an exact quote but that was the gist of it) and so we switched to encouraging collaboration but not denying on duplication. If the review process is moving back towards denying dupes, there should probably be an issue on that and get Dries to weigh in as that is going against what he said he wanted years ago.

Personally, I think duplication is something to be avoided whenever possible but I've softened my stance since those early days and acknowledge that collaboration is ideal but not always possible. There are a lot of reasons, some technical, some personal, and I don't think we should turn away contributors if working together doesn't work out.

Michelle

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

#27: I'm sorry, but I won't be starting an issue about disallowing projects without code. I don't consider it a problem, and thus won't be able to push the suggestion in any good way. Sorry. :-/

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

#31, as I said I had no axe to grind here. I thought I was spending 5 minutes reporting spam only to find it is more valued than hard work. I think it is inconsistent allowing "I used to be a module" and denying real projects, and disrespectful to hard workers too. But if people are happy with this situation then I'll just bear it in mind when deciding where to use my software development time.

fubhy’s picture

fubhy commented

You are completely wrong with what you are saying here. Noone values anything more than the hard work that everyone here puts into this community and the, as you call them, 'real modules. You only see black / white here and thereby completely miss the bigger picture. The people behind these fun projects are some of the most hard working and greatest contributors of this community. They use these modules for a reason as explained here: http://chicago2011.drupal.org/sessions/bad-judgement-eldorado-superfly-k...

It is one of the characteristics of this community that we are able to enjoy ourselves and have fun together while creating something great. Yes, this is serious business, and yes, we are all working hard to make it even better but even if you don't see it yet: These fun projects are in fact real contributions to the community and they do just what they are supposed to do... And they are good at it.

I accept that the arrow module kinda falls out of line there as it doesn't host any fun code (the joke behind it in fact is that it does NOT host any code).... And so I don't object to it being deleted.

It is also completely inappropriate to try and threaten us with you abandoning Drupal. This wont help with solving this issue. You and maybe other obviously have a problem with fun projects hosted on d.o... Okay, let's find a solution. I would just like to kindly ask you to see and understand the idea behind these fun projects. Watching the presentation linked above is a good start.

Fun projects are anything but disrespectful.

rhouse’s picture

rhouse commented

I didn't threaten to abandon Drupal, I said I would keep the low value of real work in mind. And it is low. A nothing module gets put up just like that while real work must first go through a vetting process before acceptance; it has to overcome hurdles to be rated better than nothing. So jokes get higher valuation - zero versus a less than zero starting point. But I won't be abandoning slideshow_creator, as I value the work of its original author far too highly, and I shall honour it as best as I can.

As for the rest, apart from my initial dismay at discovering the above fact, I don't delude myself into imagining I have made or ever could make the remarkable level of contribution that was necessary to create the breath-taking D7, so I don't think I have an opinion worthy of continuing to argue about. But for the record, it is simply this: By all means have jokes, humour, novelties, and all the rest, but please try to find a special place for them where people of all levels of knowledge of Drupal won't mistake them for serious work. After all, I know enough about Drupal to fix bugs and upgrade a module from D6 to D7 and yet I mistook it for a site break-in, so for sure newcomers and lay persons will be deceived the way things are now. If these things had their own home, then there would be much more freedom to have fun and tell jokes, because no one putting stuff on the fun area would have to worry at all about its effect on the serious stuff. Why not a subdomain, like groups? "fun.drupal.org"?

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

I don't know if you're just not understanding us or deliberately ignoring what we are saying to you. I'll try to make it real clear:

  1. The first project of a given contributer goes through rigorous checking because that person is newly contributing and we need to make sure they know what they are doing, primarily to ease the burden of the security team.
  2. A purely joke module is very unlikely to make it through as a first project. One that had some real use might; one with no code definitely would not.
  3. The joke modules are being added by people who already contribute greatly to the Drupal project. They already have free access to add projects because they have proven they know what they are doing by their more serious contributions.
  4. Joke modules are a very tiny percentage of the total modules and I would be very surprised if their existence is turning away contributors.
  5. The basis of your argument is that joke modules are being treated as more important than real modules because they are put up easily while real modules struggle through the application queue. That is apples and oranges. You are comparing the ease of adding a module by someone who is already vetted to the ease of adding a module by someone who is not which makes your premise false to begin with.

So, to make this actionable:

  1. I, like some others others, think joke modules with no working code at all should not be allowed. I propose that be added to the rules. Do we need a new issue for that?
  2. While I'm not fond of joke modules, I believe those that actually have working code should be allowed as we don't want to start nitpicking whether one project is more valuable than another. I propose taking no action as far as disallowing them.
  3. If "Novelty" isn't clear enough that these are for fun, then "Joke modules" would be a clearer category. I propose checking first that there are no modules in there that aren't jokes and, if not, changing the category name.

Michelle

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

Concerning #35:

Second 1: Yes, I think we should have a new issue for that. It is a clear question to discuss, and it won't benefit from the side discussion in this issue (which is interesting but for other reasons).
Second 3: See #1428992: Rename "Novelty" category to "Joke modules".

In all, well summarized. :-)

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented

#1216964: Unpublish projects with no code on drupal.org

michelle’s picture

michelle
she/her
Primary language English
Location Wisconsin, USA
commented
Title: Arrow, Bad Judgement, and other modules are confusing » [Meta] How should joke modules be handled?
Status: Active » Fixed

Changing the title to not single out particular modules. Also, this seems to be more of a meta issue with actual actionable issues spun off. Not sure there's anything more to discuss on this one? Tentatively marking fixed but feel free to change if there's something more to do here.

Michelle

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.