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

[Zak Rogoff]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for taking a stab at this -- it's looking great so far. As Mike
said, I am in fact swamped right now and trying to keep myself 100%
focused on LibrePlanet and the big demonstration against DRM in HTML
coming up, so I won't be able to offer feedback on the press release
until a few weeks from now.

One thing I'll say now might be cool include would be a quotation from
Gitlab (via Sytse).

I want to think more through the likely reaction to this announcement
and how to make sure we get as much awareness and coverage as possible.
One thing that would help build awareness of our standards is if we
could get some other notable institution to commit to them or endorse
them somehow. Perhaps have major FS projects use the criteria to nudge
the sites that host them?

On 3/9/16 9:02 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 20:36:40 +0000, Andrew Ferguson wrote:
>> On 09/03/16 03:46, Mike Gerwitz wrote
>>> I don't think the intent is necessarily to discourage their use; the
>>> criteria are intended for acceptable hosting for the GNU project itself;
>>> we hope that others will take it into consideration as well.
>> I took this message from the B-grade in the criteria, where it lists B as
>> "good enough to recommend". Surely a goal of this project is to discourage
>> the use of unethical repositories in favor of the more ethical alternatives?
> My question is more of the exact phrasing of "should not be used or
> recommended to others".  If we want to take that stance---which is a
> good one, and I'd prefer that---then that's fine; my question to Zak is
> how broad rms' intent is with this.  For example, the evaluators wanted
> to list the specific requirements for moving to the next letter grade,
> but rms didn't want that level of detail, which makes it more difficult
> for others to encourage hosts to meet the criteria.  I don't know if his
> position has since changed or not.
>
> Otherwise, we'd want to clarify that we're requiring this for GNU
> projects, and instead recommend that others do the same:
>
>   https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria
>
>   The FSF calls on developers to use code hosting services that score at
>   least acceptable per the criteria
>
> That's a lighter statement than "should not be used".
>
>> Absolutely, feel free to make any changes as you see fit. I included that
>> because "call for: Repo sites to work on getting an A on the criteria" was
>> in Zak's original message about the announcement. I can understand why the
>> second two paragraphs should be removed (criticizing existing repositories
>> is probably a bad way to win over their support), but I'm curious as to why
>> you think the first paragraph should be removed. (I'm happy to omit it, just
>> interested as to why).
> I'm sorry, I quoted everything to make my reply, but then forgot to
> delete that part which wasn't applicable.  I was only referring to that
> last part; I agree with the rest.
>
>>> I don't think this is a campaign so much as the current state of
>>> affairs.
>> With a specific mention to GitHub's current refusal to work with libre JS,
>> perhaps a campaign would be an effective approach - although if both you and
>> RMS have tried and failed to get them to change, I can't see them changing
>> their position easily. Any word on the cooperation of other repositories?
>> I've seen that GitLab have been particularity helpful, but I am curious
>> about the others.
> I worked directly with Gitlab, but I'm not aware of any status with
> other hosts.  If you want to contact one, please CC us!
>
> As for the campaign---I agree, but it doesn't seem that was rms'
> original intent.  Further, the FSF already has the Free JavaScript
> campaign, which is largely stalled atm; it might be better to do this
> under that, and leave the criteria as their own thing:
>
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/freejs
>
>> Zak's input would be useful to clarify the points raised above, but I'm sure
>> he's very busy - I just got the campaign email about DRM from him, so no
>> worries if he doesn't reply soon.
> I'll be attending LibrePlanet in a couple weeks; I'll bring it and the
> free JS campaign up if Zak et. al. have time for a quick conversation.
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature