Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] "or any later" clause mandatory?

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:50AM -0500, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:32:12 +0100
> Sebastian Gerhardt <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 01:46 +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
> > 
> > > But before worrying about that, can we make a plan for what will happen
> > > to all the other pages on this topic?  And what they all are.  We need
> > > to be sure we can replace them all with links to this.  Otherwise we
> > > will be complicating the situation instead of simplifying it.
> 
> Okay, I will try to find all the links and cite where all the info that
> I use comes from.
> 
> > > Also, is this intended to be the official "hosting requirements", as
> > > well as the checklist?  All-in-one?
> > 
> > I certainly hope so. 
> > We have had some angry complains from applicants lately because of
> > unclear and seemingly arbitrarily requirements. A more transparent
> > review process due to a common checklist both for reviewer and applicant
> > would help a lot.
> 
> I agree with this; however, currently the checklist for the applicant
> is integrated with register scripts. By making an "all-in-one" do you
> mean we should make a similar form where the applicant has to check
> boxes off or is it better and more efficient to have only a check box
> asking whether the requirements were read? I lean for the latter.

The checkboxes are intended to be a _fast_ thing to read, which people
cannot miss. If you make a checkbox "I agree with the requirements",
pointing to a lenghty, canonical, all-corner-cases-covered, official
requirements text, then you can expect that 98% people won't read it
and will miss the essential points, a.k.a. the current checkboxes.

What exactly is missing from http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php ?
I'd start fixing this page, if need be.

Also, I don't think that stuff like "you need to test your
applications with a Free Java Suite" should be in the official
requirements. They are infered from "No dependencies on non-free
software".  Where do you see this belong?

-- 
Sylvain