repo-criteria-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Repo-criteria-discuss] Rough Draft of Announcement (Task 2)


From: Andrew Ferguson
Subject: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Rough Draft of Announcement (Task 2)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 00:43:33 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0

Hi all,

I've been following this discussion with interest, and when some free time came up I thought I would attempt to draft a press release for the criteria evaluations. (Disclaimer: I am not a professional or experienced writer, I attempted this (a) as practice in writing and (b) to generate some discussion what should / should not be in the final press release.)

I have also been in touch with GitHub customer support, and they don't seem very interested / motivated in meeting the criteria ("Nor can I say that meeting the criteria is on our roadmap for the foreseeable future") - not that I'm particularly surprised by this response. Has anyone had any success, or know anyone else I should contact? (I am persevering with GitHub not because of a love for their software, but because I feel it is easier changing the software that ~3.5 million people use, rather than convincing the same people to move to a more ethical alternative - although that is a more ideal, if less realistic, end goal).

Andrew

My attempt at a draft of the press release:
Today the Free Software Foundation (FSF) announced the release of the
evaluations of several major code hosting services and repositories in line with
the GNU Ethical Criteria for Code Repositories. Released in 2015, the criteria
grades code hosting and sharing services for their commitment to aspects such as
user privacy and freedom. The FSF encourages the community to consider only
using repositories which have gained a grade C or higher.

Code hosting repositories that have a grading of C have shown a minimum level of
commitment to user rights, enabling them to be considered acceptable for hosting
a GNU package. Repositories that have demonstrated a higher level of commitment
will gain a higher grade, at first becoming acceptable to endorse to others, and
then becoming “excellent”. A grading of F shows the service has not met even
the minimum ethical standards required, and should be rejected by the community.

Repositories are used not only by software developers, but also by software
users, and as such have a large impact on the free software community. The
criteria aims to promote examples of good ethical practice, by showcasing
repositories that respect user privacy, demonstrate a commitment to free
software, permit equal access and are consistent with the goals and philosophy
of the FSF, whether this is by promoting copyleft licensing or using the FSF's
preferred terminology. Services that fail to follow the code are taking unfair
advantage of their users, and should not be used or recommended to others.

During the past few months a dedicated group of volunteers have been
scrutinizing every aspect of the criteria. Several major code hosting services,
including Savannah, GitHub and SourceForge have been analyzed and the
appropriate grades have been assigned. 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.

Currently, none of the four repositories evaluated have reached the top grade of
A+, and only Savannah has reached a grading of A. For some this is due to a lack
of commitment and motivation on part of the developers of the repository to make
the necessary changes, while other services lack the necessary skills or
volunteers to achieve an acceptable grade. By taking the time to write to the
administrators and maintainers of a code hosting service, not only is their
awareness of the need for tools that respect user freedom and privacy increased,
but also their motivation to implement the necessary changes. Volunteers with a
coding ability are encouraged to aid the development of existing code
repositories so that they meet the guidelines. Several features have already
been added by volunteers to the repository service GitLab such as the removal of
intrusive analytic software and proprietary _javascript_.

To find out more about the evaluation process and to see the current
evaluations, view the criteria page. Any discussion, can be directed to the
libreplanet-discuss mailing list, while interested volunteers with questions or
suggestions are encouraged to join repo-criteria-discuss.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]