1) It's unclear to me what "visitor" means to me -- whether it means only
an anonymous visitor, or either anonymous or authenticated.
2) Criteria A+1, "Does not log anything about visitors." is draconian,
and, so far as I can see, directly conflicts with A+2, "Follows the
criteria in the [EFF's best practices]". The EFF recommends keeping
logs for a short time, but not no logs at all. Thus there will be the
standard web server access_log / error_log stuff even for anonymous
visitors. (I doubt it is feasible to 100% turn off *all* logging at
every level, even aside from whether it is desirable.)
Furthermore, if "visitors" includes those who have logged in, it is an
unavoidable aspect of hosting to log many actions, and this is not bad.
Simple example: make a commit -> write repository history.
Another example: update password -> writes database -> database records
transaction.
These too could be construed as logging <something> "about visitors".
Presumably not what A+1 intends, but as written, I wouldn't have a clue
how one could comply with A+1 and still provide standard hosting services.
Also, I think this is still in the planning stages, but Sytse let me
know that he and others are working on a "more free" repository
host. There's a document that is currently being used to coordinate
ideas (unfortunately it is a google doc, so beware before you access
it).
Looks great! There's a lot of text below, but there's really not much
that I suggest changing.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 19:14:22 +0100, Andrew Ferguson wrote:
Released in 2015, the criteria grades
^these criteria grade
(And any other place that it makes sense; criteria is plural.)
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.
Maybe shorten to: "[...] shown a commitment to user rights and are
considered acceptable for hosting a GNU project".
Maybe replace "rights" with "freedoms"?
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”.
Maybe a brief mention of what "excellent" means; this kinda leaves them
hanging.
and should be rejected by the community.
Are we okay with this phrasing (Zak)?
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.
I feel like this should come much sooner, as it's an excellent
introduction.
I don't know if we should emphasize "using the FSF's preferred
terminology", as that's almost guaranteed to start the usual flame wars
on GNU/FSF terminology and distract from the actual message.
During the past few months a dedicated group of volunteers have been
^, (comma)
scrutinising every aspect of the criteria.
We've been scrutinizing repository hosts, not the criteria
themselves. (Well, not anymore, at this point.)
prevent it from achieving a higher grade, as well as aspects which already
achieve the criteria in the next grade have been noted.
^, (comma)
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
^, (comma)
GitHub have responded positively to requests
^has
It might be worth keeping; let's see what Zak thinks. While I don't
think it's an excellent demonstration, GitHub is an influential,
well-respected host, and so being able to mention them doing something
in support of our ideals might be beneficial.
Several features
have already been added by volunteers to the repository service GitLab such
as the removal of intrusive analytic software and proprietary _javascript_,
GA was removed and replaced with Piwik, correct, but the proprietary
_javascript_ wasn't "removed"; it was relicensed:
https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/
That deserves a strong mention. Maybe something like:
"[...] analytic software relicensing of proprietary _javascript_"
and maybe even add a link to that blog post on "relicensing of
proprietary _javascript_". If we want to keep links to a minimum, then
omit it.
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).