[Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Zak Rogoff]

Hi everyone,

The FSF's fundraiser has finally ended and we're ready to spend more
time on projects. I want to take this opportunity to get the first batch
of evaluations published. Thank you all for your hard work and your
input on this work so far. It's time to bring it to fruition.

I've identified two tasks that need to be undertaken and listed them
below. Bruno should get first dibs on the first one, but the second one
is for anyone. The task descriptions are detailed, but they shouldn't be
considered mandates -- if anyone has ideas about improving this process
they are more than welcome. Please reply all if you're interested in
taking on the tasks.

Before I list the tasks, I also wanted to ask: does anyone know
journalists or blogs that would might be interested in covering this?
Whether you have a contact or just know of someone who covers this area,
I'd like to hear.

Without further ado, the two tasks:

# Task 1: Get the evaluations ready to publish
Bruno should get first dibs on this as he and I already had a discussion
about him doing this kind of work. Bruno, are you able to do this one?
The latest draft of the evaluations that I've received is up at
<https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/repo-criteria/eval-page-feb-4-2016.html>
for us to review. Please don't link to it publicly yet.

The task includes:

  * Double-check that the evaluations are still are up to date and send
an email confirming this to the list. If they are not up-to-date, make
sure someone updates them.
  * Add a note to the evaluations page and the evaluations matrix (the
table that summarizes the scores) saying which version of the criteria
was used to evaluated them (we should keep the date of evaluation that's
already there).
  * Confirm with Sytse and Mike Gerwitz that the Gitlab evaluation is
ready to be published (if you two are reading this, feel free to just
respond right here!). If so, add that evaluation to the draft.
  * By Tu, 2/16: Proofread, and send to me CCing the list. I'll ask
Richard and the FSF to review, requesting that they get all requested
changes to me by Tu, 2/23.
  * Make any edits requested by the FSF and Richard, and then, once the
final version of it is approved by the FSF, publish the evaluations page
and add the evaluations matrix to the existing criteria page on gnu.org.
The goal date for this will be Tuesday, 3/1. Afterwards, on Wednesday,
3/2, I will publish the announcement about it on fsf.org.

# Task 2: Write a short announcement about the evaluations to go on fsf.org

Anyone who is a strong and experienced writer could do this one. It
should link to the original announcement
(<https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria>) and briefly
reiterate its basic points without being repetitive, give an overview of
the evaluation process and call for:
* Repo sites to work on getting an A on the criteria
* Interested people to join this list and help evaluate major code repo
sites, and work with them if needed to improve their evaluations.

I'll need a draft by Tuesday, 2/16.

This will be edited/added to by me and published as a press release on
fsf.org with your name on it as a guest author. Make sure to review
other press releases in https://www.fsf.org/news and match their style
and format. Give Zak Rogoff as the media contact, like on the original
announcement.

All right, that sums it up.

-- 
Zak Rogoff // Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature