OK, a few questions that have come to me as I've been editing /
redrafting.
A while back Mike mentioned that
the evaluators wanted to list the specific requirements
for moving to the next letter grade, but rms didn't want that
level of detail, which makes it more difficult for others to
encourage hosts to meet the criteria
The current draft still contains the second-last paragraph which
urges people to contact hosts and persuade them to meet the
criteria. It also contains the following, which was written before I
was made aware of the above from Mike:
The specific sections of each service that prevent each
service from achieving the next grade, as well as aspects which
already achieve criteria in the next grade have been noted. This
enables volunteers and maintainers to identify when a repository
has reached a level qualifying it for the next grade.
Should either one of these sections be removed? Or has the views on
this changed?
I was also wondering where about on the GNU / FSF website the
completed evaluations will be uploaded. Currently the PR links to
the original PR for the announcement of the critera, and (near the
end of the document) the criteria itself. However, if the
evaluations are not on that page, they'll be missed from the PR!
There is a suitable section in the first paragraph which could link
to the evaluations, but I'm not sure what to link it to (it may be
easier for Zak to upload the evaluations and then link to them in
the PR just before uploading it, if so I'll add in a placeholder
link that can be changed before upload).
Andrew
On 07/04/16 19:44, Zak Rogoff wrote:
All right! I'm actually back!
Andrew, thanks again for writing the PR. I think it's a good draft and
we should go with it. I think this will be our first press release
written in collaboration with a guest in this way! I'm looking to
publish this and the criteria next week, barring some unforseen but
possible detour.
I've got edits/changes to be made to it, and also answers to the
questions and you and Mike asked while I was embroiled in the busy
times. By the way, thank you again Mike for helping answer Andrew's
questions. It really makes me feel good about the community we've built
around this project.
I just wanted to say, Andrew, that I know it's been a while and if you
don't feel like you can work on this during the next 7ish days, that's
ok, let me know and I'll finish it up.
### Edits/changes/answers to questions
Please link to the repo criteria post (use Markdown format plz):
https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria the first time you
mention it, and look for other things that might be good to linkify.
Definitely the link to the discussion list.
We should put the sites evaluated and their scores in the first
paragraph -- journos like to see the juiciest nuggets first
It might be good to include the fact that multiple people in the FS
community have reached out to GitHub, and we have gotten them to improve
their license picker, but they generally aren't cooperative yet.
A quote from Savannah would be awesome. If possible, try to get
something where they really talk about why what they do is important and
the special role they play in the code hosting space historically and
today (seems to me Savannah is one of the grandmommies of ethical code
hosting). You can also write a proposed quote for them and send it to
them for editing/approval. Sounds weird, but it's a common practice and
works well.
>From Sytse's responses, I think that his answer to your first question
would make a great quote. See if there are any other bits you'd like to
roll in from his other responses, check the grammar and send it to him
to make sure he likes it.
Do include the bit towards the end about encouraging people to contact
the services, that's great. I also think I'm ok with the part about
*why* services aren't currently meeting criteria, though I'll see what
it looks like in the final version.
I agree with Mike that "Services that fail to follow the code are taking
unfair advantage of their users, and should not be used or recommended
to others." is a little too strong, though it's good to have a statement
along those lines. Just encouraging people to use the good ones and put
pressure on the less good ones is enough.
|