[Catch-22|BL]

Peer review? Please just make sure you have some good reviewers!

Let me depart from the existing discussion and just reply to Erwin's request for comments.

I propose six hacking levels (tongue in cheek):

Rust
Iron
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Platinum


I propose this flowchart (half-kidding):

1. Someone submits a hack.

2. Important: When a hack first submits his/her code, they should identify if they are dumping the code (as is) or if they are sticking around. Is it okay for other people (with credit provided) to modify or "adopt" their hacks if they vanish?

3. A qualified person does a clean install to see if the thing even works. This person should also be familiar enough with vb.org to spot duplicates and blatant rip-offs.

4. If it does not delivered promised function, the hack is put in the Rust (disfunctional hacks) category.

5. If it works, the qualified person estimates the relevance and it is either put in the Iron (appears to function but is really just a trivial tweak) or Bronze (appears to function and has some significance). Note the Iron category is good enough for most custom requests that will only be used by a handful of people. No further reviews are necessary for Iron level and that is as far as it goes for those hacks. Insignificant hacks do not merit the time or energy. If by some miracle an Iron hack starts getting dozens of installs, someone can always bump it up to Bronze.

6. Bronze hacks can either stay at that level or the hacker can request an upgrade to Silver status. If the hacker requests the status upgrade, some very qualified people review his/her code and observes what happens when the first few people start installing the hack. A couple weeks in the shark tank will let you know if a new hack is poorly optimized or messy. If the hack is found to be fully functional and sufficiently optimized, the hack is sent to the Silver level. If not, the hack stays Bronze and the hacker is told to either abandon his/her request or improve the hack.

7. After a month at Silver, the hacker can request an upgrade to Gold. Unless flaws have appeared, it should be simply a check to see if the hacker is supporting the hack and addressing comments from the community. Aftercare is the measuring stick for Gold.

8. Once at the Gold level, it should be automatic that the hack works on the current version of software and the zip file should be a self-contained unit. Combing through support threads that are hundreds of posts long should definitely not be necessary. Things should by tidy.

9. Any Gold level hacks that reach a certain number of installs can be automatically promoted to Platinum (highest level). Platinums hacks should be functional, significant, sufficiently optimized, well-maintained and popular.

10. Important: Hacks need to be reviewed and perhaps demoted on a regular basis. If a hacker stops supporting his/her Gold hack, it should be dropped back down to Silver. If there are so many upgrades that a hack loses function or relevance, it should be moved to a lower priority.




Before you laugh too hard, think about it....basically any person who stumbles across a decent idea and is willing to humbly revise his hack (sometimes under the guidance of others) while remaining persistant can proudly proclaim they have a Gold level hack. Quality over quantity, baby.