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

[Andrew Ferguson]

Hi Zak, Mike and others,

What follows below is what I feel is a  final version of the press release. I've included the quotes from both Sytse (GitLab) as well as some quotes from the Savannah website which fit in well. I've also altered things to reflect the suggestions offered by Zak and Mike, and just generally tidied things up a bit.

One important thing: let me know ASAP if there is a problem with the GitLab / Savannah quotes. (I've just emailed Sytse / the savannah-hackers mailing list to check that included quotes are OK with them, so any changed to that section will need to be re-approved).

One final thing I've though may need changing (and of course other people on this list may find other issues) is that I've mentioned in the PR that “GitHub have responded positively to requests from the free software community” - with respect to their changes to choosealicense.com, however I know that on the whole they haven't been very co-operative. I'm happy to remove this (I just didn't want to comment on them too nastily / negatively in a press release, and I thought that people would be more encouraged to write to GitHub if they thought there was hope for change).

Also on the subject of GitHub, I've included in the PR a link to choosealicense.com, however the more I think about it the more I believe it should be removed. Not just is it hosted by GitHub, but I'm also uncomfortable about linking to a page with “Choose an open source license” as the main heading. I've left it in for this version, but it may be best if it is removed.

Zak – FYI there are two placeholder links in the PR. One in the opening paragraph and one in the closing paragraph. They currently just link to the homepage of gnu.org .

Please let me know if there are any other areas that may need changing – and do check for small spelling / grammar errors I may have missed!

Andrew






Today the Free Software Foundation (FSF) announced the release of the [evaluations of several major code hosting services and repositories](http://gnu.org/) in line with the [GNU Ethical Criteria for Code Repositories](https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-ethical-repo-criteria). Released in 2015, the criteria grades code hosting and sharing services for their commitment to aspects such as user privacy and freedom. GNU packages must be hosted with a service that has passed the criteria and the FSF encourages the community to use repositories which have passed. At the present time both Savannah and GitLab have met the criteria.

Code hosting repositories that have passed the criteria have shown a satisfactory level of commitment to user rights, enabling them to be considered acceptable for hosting a GNU package. Repositories that have demonstrated a higher level of commitment will gain a higher grade, at first becoming acceptable to endorse to others and then becoming “excellent”. Failure to meet the criteria shows the service has not met even the minimum ethical standards required for the hosting of a GNU package and should be rejected by the community.

Repositories are used not only by software developers but also by software users and as such have a large impact on the free software community. The criteria aims to promote examples of good ethical practise by showcasing repositories that respect user privacy, demonstrate a commitment to free software, permit equal access and are consistent with the goals and philosophy of the FSF, whether this is by promoting copyleft licensing or using the FSF's preferred terminology.

During the past few months a dedicated group of volunteers have been scrutinising every aspect of the criteria. Several major code hosting services including Savannah, GitHub and GitLab have been analysed and the appropriate grades assigned. The specific sections of each service that prevent it from achieving a higher grade, as well as aspects which already achieve the criteria in the next grade have been noted. This enables volunteers and maintainers to identify when a repository has reached a level qualifying it for the next grade.

One such service which has passed the criteria is GitLab. “We want to allow everyone to contribute to software. We recognize that many people have a need for free software to do this.” said GitLab's CEO Sytse Sijbrandij, adding that “as a former developer myself I think it is natural that you can contribute to the software you use to collaborate”. Savannah, a code hosting service run by the FSF that has also passed the criteria “host[s] projects for the sake of the ideals of freedom and community that the free software movement stands for”, with the website adding that “[t]he space given to you on this server is given for the expressed purpose of advancing free software”.

However, as of yet, none of the four repositories evaluated have reached the top grade of A+, and only Savannah has reached a grading of A. For some this is due to a lack of commitment and motivation on part of the developers of the repository to make the required changes, while other services lack the necessary skills or volunteers to achieve an acceptable grade. By taking the time to write to the administrators and maintainers of a code hosting service not only is their awareness of the need for tools that respect user freedom and privacy increased, but also their motivation to implement the necessary changes. GitHub have responded positively to requests from the free software community and have recently updated their [license chooser](http://choosealicense.com/) to include GPL v3, however more community effort is required to demonstrate to them the importance of user freedom as GitHub still fails to pass the criteria.

Volunteers with a coding ability are encouraged to aid the development of existing code repositories so that they meet the criteria. Several features have already been added by volunteers to the repository service GitLab such as the removal of intrusive analytic software and proprietary _javascript_, while the FSF-run Savannah is maintained by the free software community.

The completed evaluations can be viewed on the [evaluation page](http://gnu.org/), while the [criteria page](http://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.en.html) offers more information on the evaluation process, as well as the criteria itself. General discussion regarding the criteria or evaluation can be directed to the [libreplanet-discuss](https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss) mailing list, while interested volunteers with questions or suggestions are encouraged to join [repo-criteria-discuss](https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/repo-criteria-discuss).

On 12/04/16 16:59, Zak Rogoff wrote:

On 04/09/2016 06:31 PM, Andrew Ferguson wrote:

OK, a few questions that have come to me as I've been editing / redrafting.

A while back Mike mentioned that

    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

The current draft still contains the second-last paragraph which urges
people to contact hosts and persuade them to meet the criteria. It also
contains the following, which was written before I was made aware of the
above from Mike:

    The specific sections of each service that prevent each service from
    achieving the next grade, as well as aspects which alread	y achieve
    criteria in the next grade have been noted. This enables volunteers
    and maintainers to identify when a repository has reached a level
    qualifying it for the next grade.

Should either one of these sections be removed? Or has the views on this
changed?

For now we'll leave the the specific things needed to reach the next
letter grade, they're just on the actual evaluations Web page, which is
going to go up separately from the page with the criteria.

I was also wondering where about on the GNU / FSF website the completed
evaluations will be uploaded. Currently the PR links to the original PR
for the announcement of the critera, and (near the end of the document)
the criteria itself. However, if the evaluations are not on that page,
they'll be missed from the PR! There is a suitable section in the first
paragraph which could link to the evaluations, but I'm not sure what to
link it to (it may be easier for Zak to upload the evaluations and then
link to them in the PR just before uploading it, if so I'll add in a
placeholder link that can be changed before upload).

A placeholder link is the way to do it. Thanks!