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.
|