Add Vintage Digital to the Planet

We'd need a 'Drupal Planet' specific tag for inclusion.

http://www.vintagedigital.net/taxonomy/term/5 imo ;)

http://www.vintagedigital.net/taxonomy/term/5/0/feed looks like the feed

A "Drupal" tag is different than a "Drupal Planet" tag. By tagging with the specific "Drupal Planet" tag you're saying that the post is good enough for the wider audience the Planet provides. A general "Drupal" tag can be any little thing that's related to Drupal.

Which is why we prefer the specific "Drupal Planet" tag.

The content of the blog is currently cross-posts from dogstar.org, which is already in the planet. I assume so, but want to be sure: the vintagedigital.net site will have original content, right?

@MatthewS According to http://drupal.org/node/453640

You should have at least a few posts already in your feed so we can evaluate the content and make sure it is appropriate for the feed.

Can you please add some content.

Back to needs work. Please set to 'needs review' for webmasters once its ready.

+1

This one is ready for inclusion and is written by a bunch of well-known contributors (ok, known to me, but still...). The content looks good, doesn't seem to be cross-posted, has a drupal planet tag, etc. The only (small) thing I would say needs to be done is to add the rest of the items from the Drupal feed into the Planet- they all seem pretty interesting and relevant (although the case study may be more appropriate as a case study on d.o.).

And you changed the status because...?

See comment #10, which was referred to the OP.

So... instead of actually reviewing it you're just going to mark it back and let it sit for another year? I'm trying to help here- how exactly do you want non-webmasters, who are active contributing community members, to notify the webmasters when these things are RTBC? Preferably a way that doesn't take another year.

#10 says nothing useful- I'll just refer to this, because the status should remain unless you have an actual reason. Otherwise, you're punishing a good, contributing company for nothing.

For the record, here's the definition of RTBC:

Reviewed & Tested by the Community ["RTBC"]
The patch has received a thorough review and test by one or more experienced developers, and they have deemed it as ready to be committed to the project.

This does not need more review- these are well known community members, who have good content on their site, who have posted very good content at their previous jobs, and who deserve to have their feed on the planet.

#10 was actually setting the status to needs work for the comment made in #9. Generally we request more than three articles to be able to evaluate a feed before including it. The wording in http://drupal.org/node/453640 is a bit awkward in that it says "more than three posts are preferred", so exceptions could be made...

About the feed itself:

• Setting Up a Software CO-OP: it's an interesting article, but not sure it should be on Planet Drupal - it seems very specific to the US and US regulations and isn't really about Drupal, so might not be relevant for a large portion of Planet Drupal readers

The rest looks fine to me, although I do agree with earlier comments in this thread that one or two additional articles could help speed this issue along.

The Setting Up a Software Co-Op is an awesome post that I would not have wanted to miss. Again- it takes 2 seconds to skip to another post, but I can't go and follow every drupal firm just to know when they post about tangentially related--but still related--posts. This isn't the Drupal Developer Planet, and business articles like this are interesting to people like me, who work on the business side of things. Also- I don't think this is something that would lead to a warning for a current Drupal Planet feed, so why should we force new applicants to remove it?

Edited 2nd sentence to fix typo/clarify things

I have added the feed (http://drupal.org/aggregator/sources/716).