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

[Aaron Wolf]

On 04/14/2016 01:12 PM, Zak Rogoff wrote:
> I hear where you're coming from, Aaron. I also think that it's important
> for us to make an effort to explain why this is important and guide
> understanding of the issues.
> 
> Richard feels strongly that we should provide only minimal justification
> for the grades that we assign. I believe that I feel somewhere between
> what you do and what he does.
> 
> You might be able to open a line of conversation with Richard to hammer
> out an agreed-upon level of detail for evaluators to apply when testing
> repo sites against the criteria. That would also be a useful resource
> for evaluators moving forward.
> 

Regardless of the meta things, the wording on the Sourceforge report
needs to be clear at least. It could at least say "these functions won't
work with LibreJS on" with no further explanation, rather than the
confusing wording I saw.