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?
I'd omit this.
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 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.
Not that it's a bad thing. Zak?
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.
Andrew
|