Re: [GNU-linux-libre] review of uruk

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:42:02 +0200 Denis wrote:
> Here the issue is that I fear that no one will commit to do the full
> review, but small parts were already reviewed by different people

no single person needs to commit to do the entire review - one
person needs to commit to over-see the process, collect the
findings, manage the checklist, organize the discussions, then
open a licensing ticket when all is done (and pester the FSF if
it is ignored for 5 years), and so on


On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:42:02 +0200 Denis wrote:
> I've started to look a bit into it[2], but I'm unsure if it's the right
> approach (like does it reviews the right things?) and I've questions on
> how to automatize all that.

i thought about automation too; but that itself would be a lot
of work to implement, and the results would always be dubious -
at best it could be a guide; but thats a lot of effort to put
into a guide

i added the review checklist to that page, and moved it out of
the "incoming" name-space - the page should remain, even after it
is no longer "incoming", though maybe the extended notes could
be deleted eventually

https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Uruk


On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:42:02 +0200 Denis wrote:
> My main concern here is to find a process that can easily be checked
> later on by someone else.

that was somewhat the idea for the checklist - any detected
problems should be summarized on the checklist - the wiki
change history could be reviewed at any later time


On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:42:02 +0200 Denis wrote:
> Here the fact that Hyperbola comes before liberty-bsd is compatible
> with that hypothesis because maybe Hyperbola was way faster to check.
> Hyperbola is also way easier to understand than a BSD distribution

notwithstanding, the FSF's "brief final review" of hyperbola
should have been de-prioritized, queued behind the ones which
were already fully evaluated by the community

the point of the 2018 changes and the "brief final review", was
that the community would do all of the difficult and
time-consuming work - the FSF only needs to read the mailing
list messages, and can largely trust the reviewers findings
the FSF's role needs to be no more than to double-check what
the "application manager" has documented

freenix and liberty-bsd were already ready and waiting before
hyperbola even applied - they should have been accepted first;
which means that hyperbola should still be waiting - that would
have been fair - the FSF and this work-group have been very
unfair to some distros - we should not ignore that any longer,
or make any excuses