On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:59:37 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24:01AM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> > It's just to keep it consistent, and the number of adds/updates is not
> > high, so the time spent on administrating the hump is by far shorter than
> > the time it would take to develop a registering system and moderate the
> > modifications.
> > 
> > > Having that permanent archive we are talking about is also part of the solution.
> > 
> > I agree. The hump does not aim to be any kind of repository, just a list of
> > links with some order. If/when an official place with files and
> > classification where to find all contribs existed/exists, the hump
> > would/will be useless.
> 
> I agree with your motivation. In the meantime, a quick solution which
> can help having more "lively" update notifications can be to just keep
> an online version of the list of broken links you've just sent to the
> list.
> 
> I'm thinking at a link on the main page "broken links", containing a
> daily generated list of broken links. That way people, including both
> contributors and users, can look at the list and send you an email with
> the up to date link. It won't be a wiki, but at least it would enable
> users to improve the content and diminish the overall update time of
> links .... I think :)

It seems a good idea, with some warnings about the result being possibly
wrong because a website can be temporary down... or even the inria network
being down at the bad moment.

I'll add this page soon and announce it on the lis.

Regards,

Maxence