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

[Mike Gerwitz]

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.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature