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

[Andrew Ferguson]

OK: new draft. Thanks for the suggestions, Mike. I've added notes below 
relating to any issues that could arise.

On 13/04/16 03:55, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> Are we okay with this phrasing (Zak)?
I've left 'rejected by the community' in for the moment, but if Zak 
wants something different I'll gladly change it.
> > 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've swapped the second and third paragraphs around, so this is now the 
second.
> 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.
I've now removed that bit, as from what I can see a fair amount of the 
criteria for 'A' is linked to the FSF's phasing.
> 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.
Zak said to "look for other things that might be good to linkify", so 
I've linked to that page. Zak: if you don't want that link, feel free to 
remove it.

I've also made a few other changes aside from the ones noted by Mike, 
and I expect a few more when Zak gets in touch.

Zak: I notice that all other press releases have explanatory paragraphs 
for the FSF and GNU/Linux added, as well as the media contact 
information. Do you want me to add this or will you add it before posting?

Finally, I've just remembered that my language settings for LibreOffice 
(how I've been drafting the PR) are set to British-English, rather than 
American-English which (I assume) should be used for news from the FSF. 
I believe I've now corrected all those errors, but there may be ones I 
have missed / don't know about.

Andrew

P.S: Mike, whilst reading the bit about Sytse compiling a PDF of Disqus 
comments so you could read them on your guest post to GitLab.com, I've 
realized that you won't be able to view the google doc page that I 
linked to earlier (regarding Sytse + and others' 'more free' repository 
host). I'm happy to create a PDF and send it if you want?




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, these criteria grade 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.

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 aim to promote examples of good ethical practice 
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.

Code hosting services that have passed the criteria have shown 
commitment to user freedoms and are 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” - recognition that the 
service has a demonstrated an exemplary commitment to freedom. Failure 
to meet these 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 free software community.

During the past few months, several major code hosting services 
including Savannah, GitHub and GitLab have been analyzed 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 
these 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 has 
responded positively to requests from the free software community and 
has recently updated its [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 these criteria. Several 
features have already been added by volunteers to the repository service 
GitLab such as the removal of intrusive analytic software and the 
[relicensing of proprietary 
JavaScript](https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-software/), 
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).