Fw: (forw) Gitlab fails on several criteria: C0 C2 C3 C4 C6

[bill-auger]

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:35:48 -0500
From: repo-criteria-discuss.grokchem@spamgourmet.com
To: bill-auger@peers.community
Cc: repo-criteria-discuss@gnu.org
Subject: (forw) Gitlab fails on several criteria: C0 C2 C3 C4 C6


Hi Mr. Auger,

Looks like your mail server isn't as fussy as gnu.org since it
accepted my last msg.  If you don't mind, I would really
appreciate it if you would post the following to
repo-criteria-discuss@gnu.org for me as well.


Thank you!

----- Forwarded message from
repo-criteria-discuss.grokchem@spamgourmet.com ----- Date: Sat,
6 Mar 2021 18:05:55 -0500 From:
repo-criteria-discuss.grokchem@spamgourmet.com To:
repo-criteria-discuss@gnu.org Subject: Gitlab fails on several
criteria: C0 C2 C3 C4 C6

I'll be brief.  It's gotten harder to post to this list since I
posted a year ago, so I'm not sure if this will go through.  The
mail server has gotten fussy.

This article covers a lot of unethical characteristics of
gitlab.com:

  
https://git.sdf.org/humanacollaborator/humanacollabora/src/branch/master/gitlab-dot-com.md

If you search for the string "criteria" on that page, it will
bring you to the issues that are relevent to the FSF mission.  I
also suggest reading the whole thing, because some of
gitlab.com's harmful conduct should inspire more criteria for
ethical repositories.

E.g.:

* (3) Bugs should be easy to report.  Some repos are so painful
to use that people simply choose not to report bugs.  Yet there
is no criteria that covers this.  Bug reporting is the one
activity where convenience is critical.

* (7) Being able to run "torsocks git clone <repo>" should be a
criteria.

* (9) Being able to register with a forwarding email account
(and more generally, not being excluded from participation as a
consequence of securing one's self).


----- End forwarded message -----