Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Zak Rogoff]

On 04/14/2016 04:17 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 01:12 PM, Zak Rogoff wrote:
>> I hear where you're coming from, Aaron. I also think that it's important
>> for us to make an effort to explain why this is important and guide
>> understanding of the issues.
>>
>> Richard feels strongly that we should provide only minimal justification
>> for the grades that we assign. I believe that I feel somewhere between
>> what you do and what he does.
>>
>> You might be able to open a line of conversation with Richard to hammer
>> out an agreed-upon level of detail for evaluators to apply when testing
>> repo sites against the criteria. That would also be a useful resource
>> for evaluators moving forward.
>>
> 
> Regardless of the meta things, the wording on the Sourceforge report
> needs to be clear at least. It could at least say "these functions won't
> work with LibreJS on" with no further explanation, rather than the
> confusing wording I saw.
> 

Ok, it can't hurt to clarify the wording. Mike, I think that, in line
with what Aaron is saying, replacing the terms "LibreJS compliant" and
"LibreJS compatible" in the SF and Gitlab evaluations would be good to do.

-- 
Zak Rogoff // Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation