Re: (re-)evaluation of notabug.org

[Bert Van de Poel]

I agree that insisting is quite a difficult term within this criterium. 
Either it presumes, like Bill explained, that an admin manually checks, 
which I don't think is realistic, or it boils down to recommending since 
software can't do much more than mention it at every stage. I don't 
think insisting should then be an extra aspect on A+, I already feel 
like certain criteria are difficult to succeed at when your forge has a 
certain amount of popularity, we shouldn't add to that list in my opinion.

Bert


On 6/04/2021 14:59, bill-auger wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 06:25:30 -0400 bill-auger wrote:
> > in summary, i see only two criteria which are clearly failing:
> > B0 and A+5
> i just realized that i omitted A9 - i was following the wiki
> checklist, which had a bug, preventing A9 from being rendered
>
> notabug does not satisfy A9
>
>    Insists that each nontrivial file in a package clearly and
>    unambiguously state how it is licensed. (A9)
>
> i wonder if this criteria could be relaxed to "Recommend ..." or
> "Explains the importance of ...; or for it to be moved to the A+
> class - that is not to argue against the criteria itself; but in
> practice, it will probably prevent any forge other than savannah
> from ever fulfilling the A class completely - it is not likely
> that any forge would ever be able to enforce it, technically;
> though that would be a great feature
>
> enforcing it would be an admin task; and it would rely on users
> reporting offending repos - surely the admins alone, can not
> police it, with thousands of users; and in practice, it is not
> likely that users would ever report offending repos - the ideal
> is great; but in practice, this is not going to actually happen,
> not on savannah either