The idea is to create objective criteria that users can follow in publishable ratings of the 100,000 open source projects out there. It would operate a bit like Zagat's does for restaurants, using a lot of people who've eaten the stuff rather than a few highly-trained reviewers.
This is really overdue, but I can't help worrying about the Law of Unintended Consequences:
- Could this merely validate what's popular and prevent good new projects from moving forward?
- How good and objective are the reviewers going to be?
- Could this become a crutch for business executives?
The best possible people are working on this. In addition to CMU and Spikesource, O'Reilly and Intel are also on board. I assume they all share my worries, and it's good to have them on the case.