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

[Zak Rogoff]

The evals are looking great, thanks, Mike. I'm so excited to actually
publish this!

I'm going to try to address these two important questions simultaneously:

"Do we have a definitive up-to-date reference? I don't think there have
been any updates since Bruno last modified this draft (aside from
Gitlab)." -- Mike

"One thing: the current evaluation of GitHub has "They push people
toward GPLv2, undermining GPLv3 adoption" as a note. From what John was
saying earlier, hasn't this changed (and if so, should this be changed
in the evaluation - or would that require the whole of GitHub to be
re-evaluated again?)." -- Andrew

---

I am definitely a little uneasy about publishing these with evaluation
dates from last year on them (I consider that to be my fault for
bottlenecking the process, FWIW), but I think it's ok if we do a
due-diligence check and see what has to be updated.

I think that we can leave Gitlab and Savannah alone since we would have
heard about it if they made changes that significantly changed their
scores. There probably isn't much point in re-evaluating SourceForge
before launching, because it's at the bottom of the barrel and a lot
would have had to change under our noses for it to move up even one grade.

Github's notes for C5 do need to be updated, though, and if we are doing
that and fixing the date then yeah, we do have to check that the
evaluation as a whole is still up to date. I just re-checked the the C0
evaluation of GitHub, which is the thing that's keeping it in the F
category (it's going to have to return for summer school and take
Remedial Repo Ethics 101). I determined that there's no change to its C0
score, so I'm satisfied keeping the rest of the evaluation as-is, as
it's very unlikely that anything has changed in a meaningful way that
would affect it.

tl;dr: Mike, all you need to do to the evals themselves before
publishing giving to me to publish is update Github's C5 score and
update the date on the eval. You might want to add your name to it too.

# Other feedback

* I think it'd be good to change the "Version" column label in the
matrix to "Criteria version"
* Replace Bruno's email address at the bottom with that off the repo
criteria list.
* This is a change to the plan rather than the evals, but for the last
step of Task 1 (publishing) let's just give the criteria page a
prominent link to the evals page, rather than actually copying the
evaluation matrix onto the criteria page.

# Timeline

Last thing I want to say is that we'll be shortening this step:

* 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 within a week.

From a week to a day or two.

Hopefully we can get all the page soft-launched on gnu.org on Thursday
and then the press release published on Friday. Mike, LMK if you have
any concerns about being able to do that.

-- 
Zak Rogoff // Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature