Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Should the "extra credit" really be extra?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 11/04/2015 11:37 AM, Niels Nesse wrote:
> I recently discovered the "GNU ethical repository criteria" page. I am
> very happy that this issue is being addressed. There has been too much
> apathy about the practices of hosts by free software developers.
> 
> I do have one issue with the way the criteria are structured however. I
> think use of an "extra credit" section undervalues the privacy issues
> addressed in that section. I can think of many ways a host could abuse
> data collected about me (without using tracking cookies) that would make
> me not even want to put the provider in a "Good" category. I'd suggest
> removing this category and distribute it's concerns throughout the
> sections. You could grade providers based on how transparent their
> privacy policy is, how much information they track, how often it is
> purged, etc. You should have to have an excellent approach to user
> privacy to get an "A", a good approach to privacy to get a "B", etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Niels
> 
> 

FWIW, I agree *strongly* with that sentiment. We don't need to revisit
it, but from earlier discussion, I made it clear that I think many of
the "A" grade level things like "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" wording really
should be only extra-credit level, and I agree with Niels that some
current extra-credit stuff like accessibility and privacy should be
considered more important.

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com